Legislation in the USA to support musicians with streaming revenue is will be reintroduced next month by Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tlaib. In advance of its reintroduction, there’s a chance to lend your support.
Reintroduction
If this sounds familiar, Rep. Tlaib shared a draft of the legislation in the 118th Congress in 2024. The bill was originally led by two Congresspeople who have been outspoken on Palestine: Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Rep. Rashida Tlaib. I point that out for a reason: there’s an opportunity for activist groups to build networks across multiple issues, rather than feeling spread thin by different causes. And I expect it’s not accidental that the Congresspeople willing to go against the US government’s policy status quo on Palestine are also raising their voices for equity for musicians.
And as Rep. Rashida put it, “I’m from Motown”:
The reintroduced act has a new lease on life in a new Congressional session, and the momentum of growing discontent from across the music industry. As before, Rep Tlaib has the backing of the United Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW), which has loudly supported the legislation and led grassroots campaigns on this and other initiatives. That group, founded to mobilize musicians during the COVID crisis, has gone on to work for health care, the environment, and abolishing ICE, among others.
Growing momentum
A lot has happened since 2024. The UMAW says thousands of artists, music workers, record labels, and other industry players have pledged their support. Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Thompson, Omar, and Ramirez all signed on as co-sponsors. And the New York City Council passed a resolution endorsing the LWMA and fair pay in streaming. I can tell you from experience lobbying Congress to pass legislation and having authored and worked to pass a NYC Council resolution, all of this can have an impact. Yes, even a city council resolution — don’t forget just how much economic weight NYC brings to the table.
You can read the full legislation, but in a nutshell the idea is, claim more money, and pay out to artists. The per-stream rate goes up for every artist. And you share the wealth: revenue above 1,000,000 plays is distributed to all artists to try to make music more sustainable for everyone, not just top 40 pop stars. That’s what they mean by “supporting diversity.” It’s artist-centric, not just industry-centric, but it’s also weighted to ensure less popular artists still see wages.
The model
Unlike some past failed efforts, the legislation doesn’t get mired down in a lot of complex calculations to nickel-and-dime existing revenue streams beyond the point of sustainability. Instead, the idea is to build an Artist Compensation Royalty Fund, with money paid into that fund by an additional subscription fee and a 10% levy on non-subscription revenue. In exchange for consumers paying that more sustainable fee (with only a marginal increase in costs), money flows to the actual artists instead of to streaming platform profits.
That’s completely new and radical, right? Well, no. SoundExchange already works this way for satellite radio and internet broadcasts in the USA. And in the 90s, there was a fund for recording digital media (think writeable CDs). The non-profit organization administering this fund would do the same.
But there’s an important point to be made here. This adds money to the system. Instead of just slicing up the same pie and spiraling into scarcity, you make the pie bigger. It benefits streamers, too, because suddenly there’s a balanced revenue flow to artists that can’t just be redirected to AI or profits.
Organizers promise a one-cent-per-stream minimum under the new system. They’ve also set up a calculator on the explanation page. So, for instance, let’s say you get even a modest 10,000 streams a month. Right now, your DSP pays you US$17.30. Under the new scheme, you’d still get that, plus $100, for a total of $117.30. See the full explanation:
https://weareumaw.org/make-streaming-pay
Organizers’ call to action
Obviously, this just covers the USA, but it could be a model for other countries. It’d be great to see similar legislation here in Europe, even, ideally, EU-wide. Work by composers and musicians in the USA has been a model for international efforts before.
For that to happen, though, the bill needs more support. UMAW has an action letter, and they’re nearly to their initial 6000-letter goal (ideally for those of you who vote in the USA, including those living abroad):
Tell Congress: Co-sponsor the Living Wage for Musicians Act!
For folks worldwide, I’d be curious to hear about how similar initiatives might work.
September 29 is when Rep. Tlaib promises to reintroduce the legislation. Acting now still makes sense, as it could help garner cosponsors. And in this crazy legislative session, this could well become a bipartisan issue with some unusual bedfellows, so US readers, call those Representatives, whatever party or end of the political spectrum is.
Via BlueSky — “but Trump!” Yeah, I mean, normally you fight until you win; if you’re waiting to win before you start fighting, there’s your problem right there. And looking at UMAW’s agenda, they might be exactly who you seek out right now when the pressure is on.
The timing also makes sense with mid-term elections looming. Think long game.
See some of the initial supporters here:
Various folks have weighed in on this; Miss Krystie is also an actual Entertainment Attorney, whereas I’m just a musicologist:
Watch this space.
Oh, and by the way, before someone brings this up — doesn’t this conflict with activists trying to get artists to pull content from streaming services? I’m curious to talk to organizers about that, but my initial impression is that these should be entirely compatible. Applying pressure on Congress to add a fair wage while artists pressure streaming platforms by withdrawing music sounds like a great combo.
It could even help add labels and publishers to the initiative and not just individual artists. But I’m sure this conversation will continue.
What’s proposed by this bill also does nothing to address the structural issues with streaming, technically, creatively, or socially. So another way to think of this is that it provides a legislative model for how to share revenue. There’s a strong argument for abandoning these platforms altogether, but adopting the notions of equity and sustainability elsewhere in how to actually distribute resources collectively.
Meanwhile, more on UMAW (including membership, campaigns, and free resources):