Author: Mannat Gothwal, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

The rise of digital technology has transformed the way music is created, distributed, and consumed, with streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music becoming the primary mode of music access. While these platforms have increased global accessibility to music, they have also raised significant copyright concerns, particularly regarding licensing, royalty distribution, and copyright enforcement in the digital environment. This paper examines how copyright law operates within the music streaming ecosystem, focusing mainly on the Indian legal framework under the Copyright Act, 1957 while also referring to international developments such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Using doctrinal legal research, the study analyses statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and scholarly discussions related to digital music distribution. The research highlights key issues such as complex licensing structures, low royalty payments to artists, copyright infringement through unauthorized uploads and piracy, and challenges created by cross-border streaming. It argues that existing copyright frameworks often struggle to address the technological realities of digital streaming. The paper therefore emphasizes the need for clearer legal rules, fairer royalty systems, and stronger international cooperation to ensure that creators are adequately protected while audiences continue to enjoy access to music in the digital age.

Keywords : music, streaming, copyright, royalties licensing, piracy, platforms

In recent years, music streaming services have become the dominant mode through which audiences access music, replacing traditional formats such as physical albums and even digital downloads. Various platforms provide users with instant access to millions of songs through subscription or advertisement-based models. This shift from ownership of music to on-demand access has reshaped the structure of the global music industry and created new opportunities for both artists and consumers.

At the centre of this transformation lies copyright law, which serves as the primary legal mechanism for protecting the rights of creators. Copyright safeguards original works such as musical compositions and sound recordings by granting creators exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform their work. These protections ensure that artists, composers, and producers are able to receive recognition and financial rewards for their creative contributions. In the context of music streaming, copyright protection becomes particularly significant because digital content can be reproduced and distributed quickly and widely through online platforms.

In order to legally stream copyrighted music, streaming platforms must obtain licensing agreements from multiple stakeholders within the music industry, including record labels, music publishers, and performance rights organizations. These agreements allow streaming services to host and distribute music while ensuring that copyright holders receive royalties from the use of their work. Although the streaming model has expanded global access to music and created new revenue streams for the industry, it has also raised significant legal and economic concerns.

One of the most widely debated issues relates to the fairness of royalty distribution. Many artists argue that the revenue generated from streaming services is often disproportionately low compared to traditional forms of music sales. Per-stream payouts are typically minimal, leading to concerns about whether artists receive adequate compensation for their work. At the same time, the growing presence of user-generated content platforms has complicated copyright enforcement, as unauthorized uploads and reproductions of copyrighted music frequently occur online.

As streaming services continue to dominate the music industry, it becomes increasingly important to examine whether existing copyright laws and licensing frameworks are capable of addressing these emerging challenges. This paper therefore explores the legal issues surrounding copyright protection in music streaming platforms, with particular attention to licensing systems, royalty distribution, and the broader implications for artists and the music industry.

In India, the protection of musical works and sound recordings is primarily governed by the Copyright Act 1957, which grants creators a range of exclusive rights over their original creations. These rights include the ability to reproduce the work, communicate it to the public, adapt it into other forms, and translate it when necessary. Rather than being a single right, copyright is best understood as a bundle of related protections that together ensure creators maintain control over how their work is used, shared, and commercially exploited.

Within the music industry, copyright protection applies to several individuals involved in the creation and production of music, such as lyricists, composers, performers, and producers of sound recordings. Each of these contributors holds certain legal rights connected to their creative role. For example, composers and lyricists have rights over the musical composition itself, while performers and producers hold rights over recorded performances. These rights allow creators to authorize or restrict the use of their work and to receive compensation through royalties when their music is distributed or publicly used.

One of the most important elements of copyright in the digital music environment is the right of reproduction. This right gives copyright holders the authority to control the copying or duplication of their work in any format, including digital storage. When music streaming platforms store songs on servers and deliver them to users when requested, the process involves creating digital copies of the work. As a result, streaming platforms must obtain permission from copyright holders before making such copies available to listeners.

Another key protection is the right of communication to the public, often referred to as the right of public performance. This right allows copyright owners to control how their music is broadcast, streamed, or otherwise made accessible to the public. Streaming services essentially perform this function every time a user listens to a song online. Because millions of users may access the same song through a platform at any given time, ensuring that Copyright holders authorize such transmissions becoming essential in maintaining the legal use of digital music.

In India, copyright protection arises automatically once an original work is created and expressed in a tangible form, such as through a written composition or recorded performance. Although registration of copyright is not mandatory, creators often register their works with the Copyright Office because registration serves as strong legal evidence of ownership. In cases of disputes or infringement, this registration can act as prima facie proof of authorship and help simplify legal proceedings.

A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc.

This landmark case addressed the legality of peer-to-peer music sharing networks that allowed users to exchange digital files without authorization from copyright holders. The court examined whether the platform could be held responsible for the actions of its users. It ultimately ruled that the service facilitated widespread copyright infringement and therefore could not avoid liability. The decision established that digital platforms can be held accountable if they knowingly enable large-scale infringement. The case marked an important moment in the legal response to digital piracy and demonstrated that traditional copyright

principles could still apply to emerging technologies. It also encouraged stronger enforcement actions against unauthorized digital music distribution services.

Capitol Records LLC v. ReDigi Inc.

This case involved an online marketplace that attempted to create a platform for the resale of legally purchased digital music files. The company argued that the “first sale doctrine,” which allows resale of physical goods like CDs, should apply to digital files as well. However, the court rejected this argument, holding that transferring a digital music file necessarily creates a new copy of the work. Because copyright law grants the copyright holder exclusive reproduction rights, such transfers could not occur without authorization. The decision highlighted a fundamental difference between physical and digital goods and reinforced the idea that digital distribution raises new legal questions not fully addressed by existing copyright doctrines.

Tips Industries Ltd v. Wynk Music Ltd (Bombay High Court, 2019)

This case addressed whether online streaming platforms could rely on statutory licensing under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957. Wynk Music argued that it was entitled to stream songs from Tips Industries by using the statutory license meant for broadcasting organizations. The Bombay High Court rejected this argument and held that Section 31D was intended only for traditional broadcasting mediums such as radio and television, not internet- based on-demand streaming services. The decision clarified that streaming platforms must obtain voluntary licenses from copyright owners, reinforcing the negotiating power of music labels in the digital streaming environment.

Warner Chappell Music v. Spotify (2019)

This dispute arose when Warner Chappell Music alleged that Spotify streamed music from its catalogue without securing proper licensing agreements after launching in India. Spotify initially attempted to rely on statutory licensing provisions, which led to legal challenges from rights holders. The matter was eventually resolved through a settlement and licensing agreements between the parties. The case highlighted the practical importance of negotiated licensing arrangements in the streaming industry and demonstrated the limitations of relying on statutory licensing for digital music platforms.

Saregama Ltd v. The New Digital Media & Others (2017)

This case involved a dispute regarding the ownership and assignment of rights in sound recordings. The court examined contractual provisions related to music soundtracks and the interpretation of the term “plate” in older copyright agreements. The ruling emphasized that the owner of the original soundtrack retains protection under copyright law, even as music distribution shifts to digital platforms. The case highlighted the importance of clearly defined ownership rights in sound recordings within the evolving digital music industry.

Copyright Act, 1957 (India)

The Copyright Act forms the primary legal framework governing music copyright in India. The Act grants exclusive rights to authors, performers, and producers of sound recordings, including the rights of reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public. Over the years, amendments have attempted to address emerging digital issues, particularly regarding performer rights and royalty sharing. However, many scholars argue that the law was originally designed for traditional forms of media and therefore does not fully capture the technological features of digital streaming platforms. As a result, courts and regulators often face difficulties when applying these provisions to modern online services.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) introduced important provisions for regulating copyright in the digital environment. One of its most significant contributions is the safe-harbor framework for online service providers. Under this system, platforms are protected from liability for user-generated infringement if they promptly remove infringing content after receiving notice from copyright holders. The law also prohibits the circumvention of digital protection technologies designed to prevent unauthorized copying. The DMCA has become an influential model for regulating digital copyright globally and plays a major role in shaping how streaming platforms manage copyright compliance.

Existing literature on music copyright has largely focused on traditional forms of music distribution such as physical sales, broadcasting, and digital downloads. However, the rapid growth of digital streaming platforms has created new legal and economic challenges that are not fully addressed within current scholarship. One significant gap lies in the application of traditional copyright categories such as reproduction and public performance to on-demand digital streaming, which operates through a hybrid technological structure. Although statutory provisions like Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 regulate broadcasting, their applicability to internet-based streaming platforms remains contested, and limited research examines how courts interpret these provisions in the digital context.

Another gap concerns the transparency and fairness of royalty distribution within streaming platforms. While previous studies acknowledge that artists often receive low per-stream payments, fewer analyses explore how revenue models such as the pro-rata payment system and algorithm-driven playlists influence compensation, particularly for independent musicians. Additionally, the growing financialization of music rights, where future royalties are treated as tradable assets and sold through investment platforms, remains relatively underexplored in legal scholarship.

Further gaps also exist in understanding copyright enforcement in user-generated digital environments and the cross-border regulatory challenges created by global streaming services. This study addresses these issues by examining licensing frameworks, royalty distribution structures, intermediary liability, and international copyright challenges in the context of modern music streaming platforms.

This study uses a qualitative legal research approach to understand how copyright law deals with digital streaming and whether existing legal frameworks are sufficient to address the challenges created by new technologies. The research mainly relies on analysing legal texts, judicial decisions, and scholarly discussions in order to understand how copyright principles are interpreted and applied in the context of music streaming.

The primary method used is doctrinal legal research, which focuses on examining and interpreting existing laws. The study analyses statutory provisions, particularly those under the Copyright Act, 1957 (India), to understand how rights related to sound recordings, reproduction, and performances are currently defined. Judicial decisions also play an important role in shaping this analysis.

In addition to examining Indian law, the research also adopts a comparative perspective to better understand how other jurisdictions approach similar issues. For instance, the Music Modernization Act in the United States introduced changes to the licensing system for digital music, which offers useful insight into how lawmakers are adapting copyright rules to the realities of online streaming.

The study also relies on several secondary sources to support and strengthen the analysis. These include academic writings from legal journals, government reports, and policy papers that discuss copyright law in the context of digital media and technology.

Licensing is one of the most crucial elements that allows music streaming platforms to operate legally. Before a streaming service can make a song available to its users, it must obtain permission from the copyright holders of that music. Since music usually involves Multiple rights holders, such as lyricists, composers, performers, publishers, and record label streaming platforms are required to secure several different types of licenses. These licensing arrangements ensure that creators and rights holders receive compensation whenever their music is played or distributed through digital platforms.

One of the most important licenses required in the music industry is the mechanical license. This license allows a platform or distributor to reproduce and distribute a musical composition. Historically, mechanical licenses were associated with the physical reproduction of music, such as the manufacturing of vinyl records, CDs, or cassette tapes. However, in the digital era, the concept has expanded to include the reproduction of music on digital servers, which is necessary for streaming services. Whenever a platform stores songs on its servers so that users can access them on demand, it is technically reproducing the

composition and therefore requires a mechanical license from the copyright holders. In many jurisdictions, organizations collect and distribute mechanical royalties on behalf of songwriters and publishers, ensuring that creators receive compensation for the use of their work.

Another essential license in music streaming is the public performance license. This license allows music to be played or transmitted to the public, including through online streaming. Every time a user streams a song through a digital platform, the music is considered to be communicated to the public. Because of this, streaming services must obtain permission from the copyright holders for this form of public performance. In many countries, performance Rights organizations manage these rights by issuing licenses to streaming platforms and collecting royalties for songwriters, composers, and publishers. These organizations then distribute the royalties to the respective rights holders based on the frequency with which their music is played.

Streaming platforms may also require a synchronization license, often referred to as a sync license. This type of license becomes necessary when music is combined with visual content such as films, advertisements, television shows, or online videos. For example, when a song is used as background music in a video advertisement or promotional content on a streaming platform, the platform must obtain synchronization rights from the copyright holders. Sync licensing has become increasingly relevant because music is frequently paired with visual media in promotional campaigns, social media content, and video streaming services.

Closely related to synchronization licensing is the master license, which grants permission to use a specific recorded version of a song. The master recording is usually owned either by the performing artist or by the record label that produced the recording. When a streaming

service or media producer wants to use an existing recording rather than creating a new version, they must obtain a master license from the owner of that recording. In many situations, a master license is issued together with a synchronization license to authorize both the use of the composition and the particular sound recording. In India, the licensing of musical works is also influenced by statutory provisions under the Copyright Act 1957. One particularly significant provision is Section 31D, which allows broadcasting organizations to obtain statutory licenses for the public communication of sound recordings and musical works. The provision was originally introduced to regulate radio and television broadcasting by allowing broadcasters to play copyrighted music while ensuring that copyright owners receive royalties determined by regulatory authorities. However, with the growth of digital music services, debates have emerged regarding whether this statutory licensing framework applies to internet streaming platforms as well.

The interpretation of Section 31D has therefore become an important legal issue in the context of digital music distribution. If streaming platforms are allowed to rely on statutory licensing under this provision, they may obtain licenses through a regulatory mechanism rather than negotiating individual agreements with record labels and publishers. This approach could simplify the licensing process and reduce operational costs for streaming platforms. On the other hand, if statutory licensing does not extend to internet streaming, platforms would be required to negotiate licensing agreements individually with copyright holders, which could significantly increase costs and complexity.

Royalty distribution continues to be one of the most contested issues in the modern music industry. Many artists believe that the current streaming-based revenue model distributes income in a manner that disproportionately benefits streaming platforms, record labels, and

highly popular artists, while smaller or independent musicians receive only a limited share of the revenue. A major criticism relates to the pro-rata payment system used by most streaming services. Under this system, all subscription and advertising revenue is pooled together and distributed based on the overall share of streams across the platform. As a result, artists with the highest number of streams receive the largest portion of the revenue, even if individual listeners primarily listen to other musicians.

The issue becomes clearer when we look at how music is distributed in today’s digital environment. In the past, artists relied heavily on radio broadcasts as a steady source of royalty income. Radio play helped songs reach wide audiences and ensured that artists received payments when their work was broadcast. However, the music landscape has changed significantly with the rise of digital streaming. Today, many listeners discover new music through “music discovery” or “lean-back” playlists on streaming platforms. These playlists are usually curated by algorithms that analyse listener data and recommend songs accordingly. While this system makes it easier for listeners to find music suited to their preferences, it also changes how artists reach audiences and how they are paid. In many ways, algorithm-driven playlists offered by streaming platforms have started to compete directly with traditional broadcast radio across the world.

Another concern arises from the differences in how royalties are paid depending on the mode of music consumption. Artists generally receive a higher share of royalties when their music is broadcast on radio or performed publicly than when it is streamed or downloaded online. As streaming has become the dominant way people listen to music, many musicians feel that the income they receive no longer reflects the value of their work. This problem became even more pronounced during the pandemic, when opportunities for live performances were drastically reduced. Concerts and live shows are an important source of income for most musicians, and the sudden loss of these opportunities forced many artists to depend almost entirely on digital platforms. As a result, musicians across the world began raising concerns about whether the current revenue-sharing systems are fair and whether they adequately compensate creators for their work. Many believe that the traditional methods of distributing music revenue need to be reconsidered so that artists receive a fairer share of the earnings generated by streaming services.

In the Indian context, some of these concerns are also linked to the operation of Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Critics argue that this provision limits the ability of right holders to negotiate royalty terms with broadcasters on equal footing. Since royalty rates are determined by regulatory authorities, broadcasters may end up benefiting from comparatively lower or fixed rates, while artists and other rights holders have little room to negotiate the value of their work. Some commentators suggest that the mandatory fixation of royalty rates by authorities could raise constitutional concerns if it goes beyond what may be considered a reasonable restriction. At the same time, the structure of the music industry itself has been evolving. Over the past decade, there has been a growing trend of treating music copyrights and royalty streams as financial assets. Instead of being valued only for their cultural or artistic significance, music rights are increasingly being viewed as investments that can generate long-term income.

Several digital platforms now allow musicians to sell portions of their future royalty earnings to investors. Various Platforms connect artists with investors who are willing to purchase shares in music royalties. Through these platforms, investors can buy a percentage of the income that a song or a catalogue may generate in the future.

Broadly speaking, there are two main categories of rights that exist within music copyrights. The first relates to the musical composition itself - the melody and lyrics created by songwriters and composers. The second relates to the sound recording, which is the recorded version of that composition captured in a studio or other medium. Depending on the contracts they enter into with record labels, publishers, or other rights holders, musicians may receive royalties from one or both of these rights. When royalty shares are sold on investment platforms, they represent a contractual claim to a portion of the income generated from these copyrights. In many cases, the expected future royalty income from a song or catalogue is

divided into smaller portions, a process often referred to as fractionalization so that multiple investors can purchase shares in it. For investors, participating in these platforms is relatively straightforward. After creating an account and linking a payment method, they can browse listings of royalty shares related to specific songs, albums, or entire music catalogues. Some shares are sold directly at a fixed price, while others are offered through auctions. Once purchased, investors receive periodic payments based on the royalties generated by those musical works. Many of these platforms promote royalty shares as “uncorrelated assets,” meaning that their value is not necessarily tied to broader economic conditions such as stock market trends or interest rates. The assumption behind this idea is simple: as long as people continue listening to music, the songs will keep generating royalties.

For musicians, selling royalty shares can provide immediate financial support. Instead of waiting years for royalties to accumulate slowly, artists can receive a lump-sum payment upfront by selling a portion of their future earnings. Platforms often highlight additional advantages as well, such as allowing artists to retain partial ownership of their work, regain control of rights after a certain period of time, or include future works in the agreement.

However, these arrangements are rarely standardised, and the exact terms usually depend on negotiations between the platform and the artist or their management team. Although this trend may seem like a modern development, the idea of turning future royalty income into financial assets has existed for decades. One of the most well-known early an example is the issuance of “Bowie Bonds” by David Bowie in 1997. Through this arrangement, Bowie raised substantial capital by securitising the future royalties from his music catalogue. While similar arrangements did not immediately become common at the time, the growth of digital streaming and the increasing value of music copyrights have made such financial models much more attractive in recent years.

Critics argue that the increasing financialization of music rights may also create new inequalities within the industry. Established artists with large and successful catalogues are far more likely to benefit from selling royalty shares at high valuations. In contrast, emerging or independent musicians may feel pressured to sell portions of their future earnings simply to secure short-term financial stability.

While streaming platforms have made music more accessible to listeners worldwide, they have also created new challenges for copyright protection. Issues such as unauthorized uploads, piracy, and remix culture have made it more difficult for artists and rights holders to control the use and distribution of their work.

Many users upload songs, edited clips, or remixed versions of existing tracks without

obtaining permission from the original rights holders. Once uploaded, such content can quickly spread across platforms and reach large audiences, reducing the ability of artists and producers to manage how their work is shared and monetized.

Another major concern is digital piracy. With the widespread availability of high-speed internet and smartphones, copying and sharing music without authorization has become extremely easy. Illegal websites, peer-to-peer networks, and certain mobile applications host large collections of copyrighted music without proper licenses. These platforms often exploit weak enforcement mechanisms, resulting in significant financial losses for artists, composers, and record labels.

The international nature of the internet further complicates the issue. Many piracy websites operate outside India’s jurisdiction, making it difficult for Indian authorities to enforce copyright laws. Even when courts issue takedown orders or block access to such websites, enforcing these actions across borders remains challenging.

The growth of remix culture has also raised complex copyright questions. Digital tools allow users to combine, edit, or modify existing songs to create remixes or mash-ups. While these works can encourage creativity, they may also infringe copyright by using elements from original works without authorization. Under international copyright frameworks such as the Berne Convention remixing can violate the rights of reproduction and communication to the public. In addition, the moral rights of the original author may be affected if the remix alters the meaning or context of the work. At the same time, some scholars argue that not all remixes should be treated as copyright violations. Under Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, certain limited exceptions to copyright may be allowed if they do not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work or unfairly harm the rights of the copyright holder. In some cases, non-commercial remixes may even act as informal promotion for the original work. Streaming platforms use technological systems to manage copyright enforcement. For instance, automated detection tools such as YouTube’s Content ID system compare uploaded content with databases of copyrighted material. If a match is detected, the platform may block the video, mute the audio, or transfer advertising revenue to the rights holder.

To further address copyright infringement, the music industry relies on Digital Rights

Management (DRM) technologies. DRM systems restrict unauthorized copying, sharing, or distribution of digital music files. Although these tools help reduce piracy and protect revenue streams, they have also raised concerns about limitations on consumer access to legally purchased content.

Platforms such as streaming services, social media websites, and online marketplaces often allow users to upload large amounts of content. In such situations, it becomes difficult for platforms to monitor every upload. To address this issue, several legal systems have introduced safe harbour provisions which protect online platforms from liability for copyright infringement committed by their users, provided that they follow certain legal requirements.

One of the most important legal frameworks in this regard is the Digital Millennium

Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States. The DMCA is a federal law enacted in 1998 as Public Law 105-304 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It was introduced to address copyright challenges created by the rapid expansion of digital technologies and the internet. The Act also implemented the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty into U.S. law and aimed to strengthen copyright protection in the digital environment.⁴ Later reforms such as the Music Modernization Act further updated copyright regulation to better suit the realities of the streaming era. The Act created the Mechanical Licensing Collective, which helps manage licensing for streaming platforms and ensures that copyright holders receive royalties more efficiently. The DMCA introduced several important changes to copyright law. Among its most significant features were provisions relating to technological protection measures and safe harbour protections for online service providers. The law prohibits the circumvention of digital protection technologies that control access to copyrighted works, such as encryption or digital locks used in software, music, and films. At the same time, the Act created a legal framework that protects internet service providers and online platforms from monetary liability for copyright infringement committed by users, as long as they comply with specific procedures laid down in the law. A key element of this framework is found in Section 512 of the DMCA, which establishes safe harbour protections for online service providers. Under this provision, platforms are generally not held liable for infringing material uploaded by users if they act promptly to remove or disable access to such material after receiving proper notice from the copyright holder. The most widely used mechanism under this system is the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedure. This process allows copyright owners to request the removal of infringing content from websites or digital platforms. If a rights holder believes that their copyrighted work has been uploaded without authorization, they can send a DMCA takedown notice to the service provider hosting the content. The service provider may include internet service providers, website operators, search engines, or web hosting companies. The notice must contain certain details required by copyright law, such as identification of the copyrighted work, the location of the infringing material, and a statement that the

claimant believes the use is unauthorized. Once the service provider receives a valid notice, it usually removes or disables access to the alleged infringing content in order to maintain its safe harbour protection.

After removing the content, the platform typically informs the user who uploaded it. If the user believes that the material was removed by mistake or that the use was lawful, they may submit a counter-notice explaining their position. Upon receiving a valid counter-notice, the service provider forwards it to the copyright owner. The copyright owner then has a limited period, usually 10 to 14 days, to initiate legal proceedings. If no legal action is taken within this time, the platform may restore the removed content. However, the system has also attracted criticism. Some scholars argue that the law can be overly protective of copyright owners and may sometimes lead to the removal of content that is actually lawful, such as parody, commentary, or fair use. Despite these debates, safe harbour provisions like those found in the DMCA remain an essential part of the legal structure governing digital platforms.

Copyright law still functions on a territorial basis meaning that each country has its own copyright system. A copyright that exists in one country does not automatically apply in another, so creators must rely on the laws of each jurisdiction where they seek protection. This creates tension between the global nature of digital music distribution and the territorial structure of copyright law.

This issue is particularly evident in music streaming. Even though streaming platforms operate globally, they must obtain separate licences for each country where their services are available. This often requires negotiating with different record labels, publishers, and collective management organisations. The process increases costs and makes cross-border licensing complicated, especially in regions where no unified licensing framework exists. As a result, independent artists from smaller markets may struggle to distribute their music internationally, and listeners in those regions may not have access to the same music catalogues available elsewhere.

Legal uncertainty also arises when music is accessed across borders. It may be unclear which country’s copyright law applies or which courts have jurisdiction in case of disputes.

Additionally, copyright exceptions, such as those related to parody or remixing, vary between countries, which further complicates global distribution.

International treaties like the Berne Convention, TRIPS Agreement, and WIPO copyright treaties set minimum standards for copyright protection, but they do not create a single global copyright law. As a result, copyright enforcement still depends largely on national legal systems, making international music distribution legally complex for artists, platforms, and rights holders.

The issues surrounding music copyright today affect several groups within the music industry, particularly artists, record labels, and consumers. For artists, especially independent musicians, copyright laws and licensing systems can often feel confusing and difficult to navigate. Many artists lack legal knowledge about contracts, royalties, and rights management, which sometimes results in them signing agreements that are not in their best interest. With the rise of digital streaming platforms, this problem has become even more visible because artists often earn very small amounts from each stream, despite their music reaching large audiences.

Record labels and publishers also operate within this complex system. They continue to play an important role in promoting, producing, and distributing music, but the digital era has changed how revenue flows within the industry. Streaming platforms, licensing agreements, and collective management organizations all influence how profits are shared. As a result, policies must balance the interests of labels, artists, and platforms so that the system remains sustainable.

Consumers are another important part of this discussion. Copyright law is meant to protect creators and ensure they are rewarded for their work. However, very strict copyright enforcement or digital restrictions can sometimes affect how people access or use music, especially when it comes to remixes, parody, or user-generated content. Policymakers therefore need to find a balance between protecting artists’ rights and allowing reasonable access and creativity among audiences.

Current copyright laws struggle to clearly address digital streaming because they were designed around traditional categories like performance rights and reproduction rights. Courts and legislatures often try to force streaming into one of these categories even though it does not fully fit either. For example, the Tips Industries Ltd v Wynk Music Ltd decision of the The Bombay High Court held that streaming is not equivalent to radio or television broadcasting, while the Music Modernization Act in the United States treats certain forms of streaming more like mechanical reproduction rights.

Technologically, streaming operates differently from both radio broadcasting and downloading. Users can choose specific songs, unlike traditional radio, yet they do not permanently own a copy of the music as they would with a download. Only temporary data is stored during streaming, which disappears once playback changes. Because of this hybrid nature, streaming contains elements of both performance and reproduction but cannot be fully explained by either category.

Copyright law must evolve to effectively address the challenges created by modern digital music streaming platforms. Earlier copyright regimes were designed for a different technological environment, where music was primarily distributed through physical media or traditional broadcasting. As a result, some of the legal categories and regulatory approaches developed during that period now appear rigid when applied to contemporary streaming services. The distinctions between different forms of digital transmission, such as interactive and non-interactive services, have become increasingly blurred as platforms combine multiple functions within a single service. This makes it necessary to rethink existing legal

frameworks and move toward copyright rules that are technologically neutral and capable of adapting to new models of digital distribution.

In many systems, royalty frameworks developed at different points in time now coexist, creating disparities in the obligations placed on different platforms. These differences can lead to uncertainty for streaming services while also raising concerns among artists and rights holders about whether compensation is fair and consistent. A more balanced approach would involve developing clearer and more uniform principles for determining royalty payments in the digital environment. It should consider the economic realities of digital distribution while ensuring that creators, performers, and producers are fairly rewarded for the use of their work.

Licensing mechanisms for digital music distribution also require reconsideration. A multi- layered system can be complex and time-consuming, particularly for newer platforms seeking to enter the market. One possible solution is the development of broader licensing models that allow platforms to access large music catalogues through a single or simplified licensing process. Streamlined licensing could reduce administrative burdens for platforms while still maintaining effective systems for collecting and distributing royalties to the appropriate rights holders.

Greater collaboration between digital platforms and copyright owners may also play an important role in improving the system. Direct negotiations between streaming services and Rights holders can lead to flexible licensing arrangements that better reflect the realities of the digital marketplace. Such agreements allow the parties involved to adapt more quickly to technological changes while ensuring that creators receive compensation for the use of their work. Encouraging cooperative approaches of this kind may help reduce reliance on rigid legal structures and create a more responsive and practical framework for managing digital music rights.

Finally, copyright law must continue to focus on maintaining a fair balance between protecting creators and encouraging innovation. Ensuring that performers, producers, composers, and other contributors receive fair recognition and compensation is essential for sustaining creativity within the music industry. At the same time, the legal framework must allow space for technological innovation that expands access to music and introduces new ways of experiencing it. A forward-looking approach to copyright reform should therefore aim to create a flexible system that supports both the interests of creators and the continued development of digital music platforms.

The shift from physical music ownership to digital streaming has transformed how music is accessed and distributed. Streaming platforms have expanded global access to music and provided artists with new opportunities to reach wider audiences. However, this technological development has also exposed significant challenges within existing copyright frameworks.

The study highlights that although licensing systems and provisions attempt to regulate digital music use, questions about royalty distribution and artist compensation remain central to ongoing debates. The dominance of pro-rata royalty models and algorithm-driven playlists has raised concerns about fairness, particularly for emerging and independent artists who often receive a limited share of streaming revenue. In response, the increasing financialization of music rights where future royalties are treated as tradable assets has created new financial opportunities for artists but may also deepen inequalities within the industry.

At the same time, digital platforms present challenges related to copyright enforcement. Unauthorized uploads, online piracy, and remix culture demonstrate the limitations of existing enforcement mechanisms. Legal systems such as the safe harbour provisions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) attempt to balance the responsibilities of copyright holders and digital platforms, but questions about platform liability and user rights continue to arise.

Despite these provisions, the diversity of approaches across jurisdictions shows that copyright law is still evolving in response to technological and educational changes. As digital technologies continue to transform how creative works are accessed and shared, further legal reform and research will be necessary to ensure that creators are fairly compensated while educational institutions and the public retain reasonable access to cultural and knowledge resources.

Bhavpreet Soni, Music Streaming and Copyright Law: Licensing, Royalties, and Legal Issues, Sonisvision (Jan. 29, 2025), https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/music-streaming-and-copyright-law-

licensing-royalties-and-legal-issues (last visited Mar. 14, 2026).

D. Bondy Valdovinos Kaye, Renting Royalties: How the Assetization of Music Copyrights Contributes to Inequality for Musicians, 47 Media, Culture & Society 1394 (2025).

Guilda Rostama, Remix Culture and Amateur Creativity: A Copyright Dilemma, World Intellectual Property OrganizationMagazine (June 2015), https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-

magazine/articles/remix-culture-and-amateur-creativity-a-copyright-dilemma-39210

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/digital_millennium_copyright_act

DMCA Notice and Takedown Process, Copyright Alliance,

https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act- dmca/dmca-notice-takedown-process/

Christopher Doval, Don Anque & Maesea McCalpin, The Next Great Copyright Act and the Future of Radio, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 378 (2015).