Editorial

Editorial: It Was Never About “Artist Rights” - How the Majors Turned AI Lawsuits Into Leverage

Written by : Ashton B. Monteiro, Esq.

When Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI-music startups Suno and Udio in June 2024, the rhetoric was about protecting artists from “mass infringement.” The filings were serious (and specific), alleging unauthorized copying of sound recordings to train generative models and seeking heavy statutory damages and injunctions.

Fast-forward to mid-2025 and the temperature changed. Multiple outlets reported that the majors are negotiating licensing deals with Suno and Udio in talks that could resolve the lawsuits and reportedly include cash, usage-based royalties, technical guardrails (fingerprinting/attribution), and small equity stakes for the labels. If it sounds familiar, it is: this is the YouTube/Spotify playbook—litigate, leverage, then license (with upside).

The majors famously took meaningful equity in Spotify while negotiating distribution terms; some of those windfalls later raised questions about how (or whether) artists participated. Expect the same debates here if equity lands with corporate parents rather than the creators whose catalogs supplied the leverage.

Calling the lawsuits an “artist-rights crusade” was always a PR tactic. From the start, I had a hunch that this was not about protecting artist rights, but rather, the labels were salty that they did not have this technology for themselves. The pattern shows a more pragmatic goal: force the AI leaders to the table, establish control, and secure long-term economics. For labels, this is rational strategy. For artists, it’s a question of who gets paid, how transparently, and on what terms.

Artist Advocacy - Where to Push

Transparency on money flows. If there’s a settlement or license, insist that label-side cash, royalties, and any equity proceeds be accounted for and shared in a traceable way—especially if your recordings or compositions were part of the alleged training set. (Spotify-equity history is the cautionary tale.)
Consent + controls. The reported negotiations include fingerprinting/attribution. Artists should push for opt-in/opt-out, dataset transparency, artist dashboards, and tags on AI outputs.
One-stop clarity. Tighten your split sheets, PRO/MLC registrations, and master/publishing ownership so you can actually grant or deny AI uses (and get paid) without clearance chaos.
Contract language. If you’re signing with a distributor or label, add an “AI exploitation” rider: consent requirements for training and cloning, revenue share on AI licenses, and participation in any equity/settlement proceeds arising from your works.

Bottom line

The lawsuits created leverage. The deals, if finalized, will likely create infrastructure (rules, rails, revenue) that shapes AI-music for the next decade. That may be good for stability, but it’s not automatically good for artists. Independent creators should treat this as a contracting and governance moment, not a victory lap. Ask where the money goes, in writing.

Written By: Ashton B. Monteiro, Esq.

From Crossfade to Crossfire: Spotify’s Latest Controversies Hit a Sour Note

Written By: Ashton B. Monteiro, Esq.

Spotify recently found itself at the center of a growing backlash, this time not for its royalty model, but for the investment choices of its CEO. Daniel Ek, via his venture capital firm Prima Materia, led a €600 million (~$700 million) funding round for Helsing, a German defense-tech company specializing in AI-powered drones and battlefield software. The move prompted many indie artists to pull their music from Spotify, and some users cancelled their subscriptions. Indie Artist, Greg Saunier of the group "Deerhoof" bluntly stated: “We don’t want our music killing people.”

Fans and creators are directly linking Ek's personal investments with Spotify’s streaming revenues. What makes the optics worse is that Spotify purportedly built its brand on community and creativity, only for its leadership to bankroll war tech. It’s a brand-identity mismatch Spotify hasn’t properly addressed.

Aligning with defense AI and not directly confronting the ethical fallout isn’t just tone-deaf—it alienates the creators it relies on. Indie artists should stay vigilant about where their platforms’ leadership is investing.

Just as the headlines heated up, Spotify quietly rolled out a new Mix feature—a built-in tool for Premium users that lets you blend playlists like a rudimentary DJ: automatic or manual volume fades, EQ adjustments, waveform visualizations, and beat or BPM alignment. It’s a sophisticated evolution of crossfade.

Curiously, this comes in the wake of Spotify ending its partnerships with DJ platforms like Serato back in 2020 while Tidal has strengthened its collaboration with Serato. These partnerships allowed integration with software like Serato’s Pyro app that provided playlist mixing capabilities. With the new feature, the feel of the old Serato functionality seems resurrected—but now fully owned by Spotify.

Spotify hasn’t confirmed any direct collaboration with Serato or acquisition of their tech—so for now we can’t say it was “stolen.” This may reflect a strategic move to control user engagement longer, compete with competitor DSPs, and keep “DJ-like” functionality inside the Spotify ecosystem.

The Mix tool may enhance user experience, but for creators, it raises questions around licensing. Will the new mixing tools require new sync or mechanical clearances? Will payouts adjust when tracks are blended? Transparency is needed before adoption.

Closing Remarks

Spotify’s recent missteps are a case study in how corporate behavior reflects on the artists themselves, especially those who share their catalog with the platform.

Perhaps now is the time for artists to consider building something of their own. A platform created by artists, for artists could offer a more equitable model, one that aligns with creative values, prioritizes transparency, and ensures fair compensation. History shows that when creators band together—whether in unions, collectives, or cooperatives—they can reshape industries.

Pro Tip: Git Hub has code repositories for music streaming platforms and Spotify has its own Git Hub page with more than 275 repositories and various schemas. Do with that as you will. 😉

Written By: Ashton B. Monteiro, Esq.

Interested in submitting an op-ed?
Email submissions to info@soundlogic.legal