StubHub UK fined for ticket pricing; Artists' AI training pressure; Suno gives artists money; James Blake vs journalists; Artists' open letter for Fossil Fuel Treaty.

0:03Hello there, welcome to The Price of Music brought to you by Music Ally. If you want an easy guide to what's going on in the music industry and how it all works, then here we are looking at the finances of the music industry and bringing you stories and comments from the pop biz in the past week. He's Stuart Dredge. I'm Joe Sparrow. And before we start with Stu's big number this week, we had a message from superfan Peter Gedge. Hi, Peter. and springing from our last episode on prediction markets, where you guess what's going to happen in the music world, Peter says, Will Stu's big number be more than a billion next week?

0:37Yes or no? My rough calculation looking at past numbers is there's like about a 70 % chance it will. So that's why I'm staking it. More than a billion. Stu, big number, please.

0:50Stu:Well, it's£900 ,000. Oh, no. But there are definitely currencies you could convert that into where it would be much more than a billion. So in essence, everyone's right. I don't know who gets the money from this, if there is any money. I think Peter is the only winner here. Yeah. Okay. So 900 ,000. Yeah. This is how much secondary ticketing firm StubHub has just been fined in the UK for illegal drip pricing. Which, alas, drip pricing is nothing to do with overcharging for whiny singer-songwriter gigs. Although this is basically the UK's competition watch. I love the word watchdog. Yeah. I want to be a watchdog.

1:26Stu:The CMA is fined about£900 ,000, but also started to refund 50 ,000 customers, around£10 each. And this is about, so drip pricing, I guess if people need an explanation. Yeah, fill us in on the drip. It's when you start to buy something, whether it's a concert ticket, an airline ticket, a hotel. And at some point in the process, later on, they go, oh, by the way, extra fees, extra things. Right. And it ends up costing a lot more than you thought at the beginning. And this is something that people have been pushing back on and saying, you should just tell us the price at the beginning, including all fees.

1:58Stu:That's actually illegal now in the UK, isn't it? Well, quite. And so this is what the thing. So apparently what happened is the step up put its hands up and went, yep, sorry, yeah, fair cop, gov. Oops. Which meant that it gets to settle this case early and it gets, I think, 40 % reduction in the fine because it cooperated. So it kind of said, okay. But this comes after its US version settled a$10 million case with the regulator there about deceptive pricing. So this is something all around the world where regulators are going, yeah, this is bad. Tell people what they're going to pay up front. Don't suddenly, because I think especially when a concert ticket, if you're excited about going to a gig, you're kind of like, I've got tickets.

2:32Stu:I'm in the queue. I'm there. And then it goes, by the way, 40 quid extra or 30 quid extra. You're like, oh, but I'll still buy them because I'm at this point, but I feel things. So the crackdown against this, the regulators have got teeth and it's a good sign. And actually, you know, to be, to give StubHub their fair due, they cooperated and they stopped doing it. And that's good, too. Big chunk of cash, isn't it? That's nearly a million pounds fine, plus refunds of over half a million. Big old chunk of cash. So obviously the watchdog, I'm more of an ombudsman guy myself, but the watchdog is clearly taking this seriously.

3:10And I mean, good that StubHub collaborated, but surely they knew about this law.

3:18Stu:Well, I mean, this is... So I'm not defending anyone here. No. I think this is kind of the way things have been done. You bought an airline ticket, they bounced a fee on you at the end. And this is long overdue being cleared up, but it just seems to have been the way a lot of companies did business. And it was seen as totally fine until it wasn't. And I think for fans, it's a good thing. But yeah, I don't know. It's... Well, it's good for fans to know that when they go and buy a ticket now, they really will be showing the fee up front because no one wants to get fined a million pounds. And in concert tickets especially, I think, because with an airline ticket, you just come out and go, well, I'm not buying that.

3:55Stu:But with a concert ticket, if you go, I feel bad, I'm not going to buy this ticket now, you might lose your place in that queue and you can't buy a ticket and you can't go and see the... So there is like a... It's a really, I think, music fans in particular are susceptible to having these fees bounced on them and not feeling they can say no. A lot of emotional pressure there, isn't there? All right, let's move on to our big stories. And fair warning, it's a bit AI heavy this week, but in interesting ways. Yes. And we'll try and keep it light, shall we? Yes. And the first one is actually more about artists, isn't it?

4:29It's 31 groups representing artists and managers have written an open letter about AI music, but it's not addressed to AI companies. So who is it addressed to, Stu, and what is it about?

4:40Stu:Yeah, well, this is like a bubbling debate, which we've kind of touched on before, I think. and it's focused on the rights holders of the music, the labels and the publishers. So, I mean, this is the background, people probably know it. The labels and publishers have been quite clear about what they expect from AI companies. They want to be asked permission to train on their music and they want to be paid for it and they want transparency. They want the AI companies to tell them what they've trained on. And this letter is kind of coming from musicians and songwriters and artists saying, we'd like the same from you, labels and publishers.

5:11Stu:We'd like you to ask our permission if you're going to put our music into your deals with AI companies. We'd like to be fairly paid. And we want transparency, understanding the deals you're signing and how it works for us. And this letter, so it was a bunch of different bodies who represent artists and songwriters and managers. You know, the Ivers Academy, the AMF, all the kind of ones we talk about normally. And it made a few claims. It claimed that, for example, artists and songwriters are receiving letters from labels and publishers saying, we're going to opt you into our AI deals by default.

5:39Stu:So if you're signed to us, your stuff is going to be part of the deals we're signing. Right. With maybe not so much, not an obvious, but you can opt out of them if you want to, or you can not be part of this. So it's just a letter going to the artist saying, hey, by the way, your music's in an AI model now. Well, that's kind of saying, yeah. Sort of implying that this is part of it in Dunhill. It also says that a lot of new contracts being offered to artists and songwriters are including AI rights clauses. So essentially, you will let us license your work to AI. Which I don't think that's particularly...

6:10Stu:evil thing. It's like a part of the traditional dance of contracts being like, we'd like this, this, and this. And then the artist... You put a red line through it and send the contract back, can't you? Yeah. So I think, you know, it makes sense if your label would be trying to do it, saying, look, if we're releasing music, can we also include it in our deals without having to come back and do all the evidence of asking you? Although, I will say as well, there is this, we were just talking about ticketing and people feeling that they get the drip pricing, they still have to buy it because they don't want to miss out.

6:36We know what it's like for artists. You know, you work so hard, you finally get offered a deal, you get given a contract that has something in it you don't like, and you're kind of very hesitant to cross it out and send it back because you're worried that the person offering you the deal will go, oh, okay, it's all off then. You don't get a deal after all. There's a lot of leverage there on one side, isn't there? Yeah, and that's what essentially said you're saying. I just feel pressured to accept things.

6:58Stu:And it says they want more information about deals being signed so they can choose something. So it was interesting, though, because this happened when I was about to go off for a week, wasn't it? And so I kind of wrote half the story, but you had to then summarize it for our audience. And this letter, it came out on a Monday morning, but the news of it was doing the rounds on the weekend because it was sent to journalists early. And the IFPI, the labels body, actually sent a statement to journalists that weekend saying, we hear there's a letter coming tomorrow. And so here's our statement. And that statement was essentially saying, look, we all share the same objectives here, guys.

7:31Stu:We all want stuff to be a fairly. And it also says we're strongest when we're united as a music community, which is true. Like one of the ways you get politicians to do what you want to do is to be united in the industry. So labels and artists, everyone come together and say, we want this to happen. But there is disunity here. I think artists and songwriters, or a number of artists and songs, don't entirely trust labels and publishers. And this goes back to some of the arguments about streaming music and the deals signed in those days. so it's kind of a it's one of those things where i think it's an important argument to be having out and a public argument having while at the same time there are other things that artists and labels are all pulling together on to demand of of kind of you know auditions so both those things are possible if that makes sense yeah it's it's i mean it's you know on one hand we've heard this a thousand times haven't we that artists want transparency they want to be included in the conversation and they want to be treated fairly and they don't feel like any of those things are happening and this is another iteration of that i guess we're just going to see where this goes but it's just another step in that journey towards having some sort of i'm not going to use the word agreement but some sort of resolution onto how ai music ai platforms train on music we're not there yet well that's it and i think like it's one thing as a journalist i think about this a lot i think if you're interviewing any new ai music company now an important question a necessary question is what did you train on you know is it all kosher and i think now when you're talking to labels and publishers an important question is how are you how are you dealing with your artists with the idea of your thing how are you what what kind of how are you communicating with them do they have a chance to opt out and opt in i think that's also a necessary question when you are talking to them so i think that yeah and through that we'll get to this point where everyone feels like things are fair and they've had full knowledge when they're signing up to something or something to do so yeah okay speaking of um music uh ai platforms ai music company suno is giving some money to musicians at last and before the chorus of angels kicks in and with hallelujah there are some strings attached what's this about and what are those strings Well, this is part of Suno's charm offensive, I think.

9:49Stu:So, I mean, people will know who it's doing. It's the biggest AI music service. It's raised the most money, and it's worth the most money, according to investors, like billions of dollars. But that's made it the biggest target for the music industry's anger about AI companies training on stuff without asking permission and licensing it. And so it's on this charm offensive. It's hiring people from the music industry. It's been kind of talking about how it wants to build models with them. And this new thing, it's called Spark, which is a really, I mean, I feel like there's been 700 incubators in Accelerator called Spark in the past, haven't they?

10:18Stu:But it's for independent singers, songwriters, producers who are using Suno to make music, but they're doing it under their own names. So it's not people, it's not virtual artists like the Velvet Sundance, you don't know who's behind it. So there's got to be a human face. There's got to be, yeah. You're using Suno, but you are releasing music yourself. And you get like, there's going to be grants, money grants, there's going to be mentorship, there's going to be marketing support, and Suno's going to go. which is kind of, you know, again, par for the course for like an artist development scheme.

10:46Stu:And the catch, so what I love about this, the clause in this, I think it's generally called good vibes only. Is that correct? It's literally called good vibes only in the conference. Good vibes only, chaps. It's very much like, is that they've got to agree they won't make any statements or representations either directly or indirectly, whether orally or in writing, that portrays Suno, Suno personnel, and or any Suno product service in a negative light. So essentially, it's a non-disparagement clause, isn't it? Yeah. We will give you money, but you will not disparage us publicly. Which, I feel like I'm on the side of the bad guys this week.

11:22Stu:Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is not that uncommon. If you take money from a brand or a thing. Right. A non-disparagement clause is a well-known thing where you say, okay, but you won't slag us off in public after taking our money. So it's not that unusual. But the optics of it in this case, and I think MBW wrote one of their wonderful, you know Tim at MBW, the editor? he's got this amazing tone when he's going to rip into someone. It's like, it's sarcastic. He asks questions, rhetorical questions. And whenever I read a piece of that, I sit in and go, I'm going to get a cup of tea for this. I enjoy it.

11:54Stu:Yeah, right. So he particularly was good at it. But it was basically saying, look, if you're saying you're the good guys, you maybe shouldn't be forcing people to not say you're the bad guys. Yeah, there's an optics issue here, isn't there? Which is like, if you're trying to look good by doing this, and then you also crowbar this thing, claws in under the vomit-inducing heading of good vibes only in the contract, you're going to come off looking worse. And of course, the music industry, there is a kind of rich history of people biting the hand that feeds them. Drake, very recently, of course, has taken his major label to, or is trying to sue his major label.

12:33The Sex Pistols notoriously just complained about all the labels they were on until they kept getting new signing fees from other ones. So, yeah, I mean, I think if Suno wants to be an actual music platform, they should probably encourage their artists to criticise. And also, I will say on a serious note, right, what is art if it's not, like if you're restricting artists from what they can say, is it truly art? And that sort of undermines the whole AI music thing.

12:57Stu:Well, there's two things I think. One, I think the music industry is slightly too nice here in that, given the history of NDAs for stuff like sexual harassment. Yeah, for sure. They can't shoot too many stones out of glass windows. The other thing I think is, if you are an artist who disagrees with Suno, has some concerns with it, if you're like a scissor, you won't take their money and you won't do this and you'll carry on criticizing. So it's not going to shut anything down. and you know in a way again sort of looking ahead a bit if we get to a point where Suno is suddenly a good guy where Suno has signed licensing deals then it will be a good thing that it's doing artist development support stuff like this like this is a good thing to be doing it's just the timing of it at the moment when it's still being super too major and it's a lot of artists speaking out saying we are worried about this this clause was picked up on I note with interest that there is no detail on how many artists they're going to be giving money to or how much money they're going to be giving them or how much marketing support they're going to be giving them.

14:05Although, you know, we can assume that Suno is rolling in cash.

14:08Stu:Well, it's interesting, isn't it? Because I think the other thing is there is a decision for an artist considering this here. If they have any kind of established reputation. Like, think about Timberland, whose music reputation is, you know, he's Timberland. you know yeah you define the music of a whole generation of pop fans but he's been getting a lot of backlash for acting as an ambassador for Suno so if you're an artist who has a fan base already it would be this is maybe something you think well hang on if I do this what are my fans going to think am I going to get the backlash here but I think what they're probably looking for is new musicians who are just starting out and they want to be they want to give them a leg up and be seen to be in the leg up so it makes perfect sense from that point of view Yeah, and the truth is, I think there's a difference, isn't there, between being an emerging artist who uses a platform like Suno to spin up samples and sample them and put them in your music.

15:02That's one thing, and discussion is to be had there. And then there's another thing being Timberland, who I imagine has got enough money, and taking a sponsorship deal with a controversial company when you don't need to do it, really. And I think there's a couple of conversations there. And if anyone out there would like to hear a very extreme perspective of that, go and read SZA's comments from last week, because she did not pull her punches.

15:27Stu:It feels like it's increasing. I don't know what you think. I feel like there's always been artists giving their views on AI, but the recent months, there's been some really trenchant people talking and saying, I think it's because every interviewer is asking them, what do you think about AI then? And they give an answer. But I feel like the noise is stepping up a bit, and a lot of bigger artists are coming out and saying, actually, here's why I don't like it. I feel like it's probably because it goes beyond, I think we've got tech people, right? Getting involved in artistry. And I think artists who consider the creative process sacrosanct are sort of saying, this isn't art.

16:03And my very, very fundamental values are being chipped away at here because this isn't. And I think, I'm not saying it is or isn't, But I think that's what needles them, is that they see this and say, this is not art. There is no blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into it. You've not learned the skill to make your expression. You're just pressing a button. And just being good at prompting is not being a good artist. That's great, isn't it? Because that's a question, isn't it? Like, where are we going? What world are we going to? Where being good at prompting maybe does make you? But I don't think, I mean, I would say, I think to speak on behalf of all artists, you're welcome.

16:42I think that they would argue quite strongly that being good at prompting is just being good at prompting. It's a new skill, but it is not the same. It takes us back really to the letter that Nick Cave wrote when he said, you know, AI can never beat art essentially because it has not lived, experienced, cried, wept, been happy, whatever, and can't funnel that through the ether into their music. and I think that's the point and I think that's what they're getting to. For me, it feels like there might be a good future where those human values are increasingly valued and people want that and they sort of perhaps sort of accept AI-generated music as the sort of filler, you know, like Muzak.

17:29That's possibly one way it could go.

17:30Stu:But I think also what Suno wants here is it's looking for the people who have suffered and who can do lyrics but can't do the music. It wants those people to, it wants to give them a leg up. And so that's interesting. I think it's looking for now because it's not about people going, well, I've created a random artist and there are different, there are different races and gender to me, but that's all fine because I can work a prompt. I think what it's looking for is actually musicians now, or lyricists probably, who are using it to make. So it's blurring. There are people who have, maybe not who've lived a life that Nick Cave has led, but I think we're going to, It's interesting.

18:10Stu:I think they're trying to find the people who they can stand up against that Nick Cave argument. It's an interesting admission, if you like, from the AI platforms that you need a human to make the music good. You need that human element. The music generated on its own is not enough to cross the threshold of acceptability. And speaking of value, Tidal, streaming platform Tidal, isn't giving any money to wholly AI-generated music. and by wholly, I mean fully, according to its new policies on this area. Quickly, should you tell us about this? Yeah, this happened yesterday. So it's published its AI policy, which is something Spotify's done, Deezer's done, other services have talked about it.

18:51Stu:And some of it's the same. So Tidal's going to allow people to upload AI-generated music to its company. It's not going to ban it. So it's not going full ban camp and banning AI music. It's going to be using detection technology to identify when it's 100 % AI music, or to try to, and label it. So you'll know. you'll see a track and you'll be like, it's AI, it will say a label. Later on, when tech is good enough, it said it would add labels to music that is, and quote, is substantially AI generated too. So for now, it's only things that are entirely AI. And if it sees fraudulent stuff, so weird streaming patterns, the same song being out there thousands of times, or stuff pretending to be a famous artist, it'll be blocked and removed.

19:29Stu:And this is broadly in line with what Spotify and Deezer are doing already. But then the big thing, like you say, is starting today, Total says, AI generation music will not be monetizable, which is a word I've given up on trying to push back on this. Won't pay royalties for it. It did, and there's a long policy. It says it's sort of pointed to a future where maybe that might change if the AI music platforms are properly licensed. It's in a world where they have licensing deals and everything's coaching. Because I guess then, if it pays royalties to AI music, those royalties will also be flowing back to the original humans.

20:04Stu:If we know the provenance, and it goes back to what you were saying, which is if they tell us what they're training on, then we can figure out where each individual song has come from as well because that is baked into how it's made. Yeah, so it's very clear. And actually, this whole not paying royalties, like everyone else is paying royalties to it unless it's fraudulent. And Deez's big thing is most of it is fraudulent, the plays with the music, so we get them. But Tidal is saying, no, even if it's not fraudulent, we're not going to pay royalties for it, which is, I think, there was a Universal Music thing a few months ago where they were saying about we'd like it out of the royalties pool for human artists.

20:37Stu:So I feel like labels have been pushing for this a bit, that this is okay to be on there, but don't pay any money. Here's the question that is itching me and has been for a long time, which is why are all the streaming platforms who have server costs and have to think about their algorithm recommending musical, why are they allowing just, you know, an enormous number of AI-generated tracks to float onto their platform? Because they can detect them. They've got data on them. They know that most of them are used for fraudulent purposes. Why aren't they just saying, you know what? If we detect it, it's just not going on the platform.

21:15No one's listening to it. When it's all sorted out and we've got the licensing sorted and when people have decided if they like it or not, then we'll let it on the platform.

21:25Stu:Wow. Okay, so yeah, I've got a few thoughts on that. So one thought is practical. Are they sure they can detect with certainty? enough to boot it off. Because if they boot off some humans, then there'll be controversy. And we saw recently there was one human band that got misled into AI. So that's one thing that's holding back. I think two is, they're not sure people might want to listen to this. Well, but they're saying they don't. I mean, Deezer said that they don't. Yeah, but that's now. But I think that I'm not sure they're sure that... I'm not sure they're certain yet that no one will want to listen to it.

22:00Stu:And they want to hedge their bets in case this becomes a thing and you've then booted it off. so I think that's part of that caution over well you know we don't know yet third thought is that they maybe look at some of the people who are doing AI generated music projects and say maybe that could be valuable, the people who are creating virtual artists and putting human lyrics into it and it's a project, it's not just pumping out 4 ,000 songs so I think they're looking at that and saying well maybe that can be on here and people are listening to it I guess it's the absence of a line, isn't it? No one's decided yet.