On January 30, the day before Universal Music's deal with TikTok expired, the company announced in an open letter that “we need to run out of time on TikTok” because we are not paying rights holders and creators enough. Universal immediately began removing their recordings from the platform – then, in late February, they took down every composition they had any rights to. Essentially, Universal went to war for the value of music, to benefit not only itself and its artists and songwriters, he said, but the entire industry. And although the two other major labels declined to comment at the time, Primary Wave, Downtown and Hipgnosis publicly backed Universal, and in late March Sony Music CEO Rob Stringer he said to Financial Times that he did not rule out taking the same action with Universal.
But not Taylor Swift.
Until April 11, just over a week before Swift's new album drops —Department of Tormented Poets, which drops April 19 — songs from Swift's copyrighted albums were available on TikTok. Which made for an awkward conversation, you'd have to imagine — and that's all you can do, because neither Universal nor Swift's rep would comment, and TikTok could not be reached for comment.
It appears that Swift's contract with Universal allows her to either license the recordings she owns or somehow opt out of label licensing policies, which is an unusual degree of independence. Usually acting with this kind of leverage he chooses to drop his music from new services – The Beatles waiting to offer their music to the iTunes Store is the classic example – or to strike some sort of exclusive deal, as Garth Brooks did with Amazon Music. It's hard to think of another example where a label has announced it's going one way and its biggest artist — though she hasn't said anything about her decision — went another.
This is a big deal. Eventually, Universal's other big stars—think Morgan Wallen, Drake, or The Weeknd—may want the same freedom, or start thinking about using whatever freedom they already have. Some artists have more power than others, however: Swift's contract is generally believed to be more of a distribution deal, where she owns her new recordings, including Taylor's Versions of her old albums, but gives them to Universal. Also, with 18.9 million album consumption units in 2023, more than some major label divisions, he has more market power than any other artist.
Given TikTok's relatively low payouts, many executives assume Swift appreciates the platform's promotional value, even though she doesn't exactly need it — Tormented poets it would almost certainly be the biggest album of the year anyway. There is also speculation that he wants to reach younger fans with shorter attention spans.
This reasoning seems at odds with Swift's reputation for championing the value of music more broadly, as she did when she refused to release it. 1989 albums on Spotify, pushed Apple Music to pay rights holders for the works during the service's free trial period, and insisted that Universal pay artists their share of revenue from Spotify stock sales, regardless of whether the their agreements had been repaid or not. “It's not for me,” he wrote of the state of Apple at the time, but rather for up-and-coming artists. What happens to them now? It has even been suggested that Swift actually crossed a line of pickets.
That's pretty much it. The concept of a picket line suggests a situation in which people who are paid on a scale bargain collectively, and that is not the case here. And it's not Swift's responsibility to fight for the overall health of the music business — she's an artist and has already done a lot more than most. For that matter, copyright is more than the size of a check. If you think about how Swift re-recorded her old albums, she can place so much emphasis on control — not just how much she makes on an album, but who owns it, how they present it, and where and under what circumstances they can release it. be heard. I'm not sure if her decision to make her music available on TikTok is the right one, but I'm pretty sure it's not mine.
This is all based on the assumption that Swift's deal with TikTok is vaguely similar to what the labels have, but that may not be the case. If you consider Swift's instincts for navigating the music industry, her deal could be much better — perhaps with an advance or a guaranteed minimum or some other kind of reason. (To be clear, I have no idea.) If you were or managed an artist with that kind of market share, what would you ask for? And if you were working for TikTok, facing political pressure in the US, as well as a difficult negotiation with the world's biggest music company, how much would you be willing to offer?
In the modern media business, market share doesn't just create efficiency – it also offers significant negotiating leverage, especially with technology companies that operate on a global scale. That's why music and movie companies are buying up rivals, digging into the distribution business, and pursuing growth so aggressively in the first place. Swift may be the only artist who can offer real scale on her own based on recordings she owns, so labels don't have to worry about it becoming a trend. But whatever Swift's decision means for the industry at large, it seems somewhat inevitable that she will pursue, and at some point use, the power that her market share gives her — just as major labels do.
