Amazon Music Wants Songwriters to Take Less

Amazon Music wants the United States to lower the mechanical royalty rates that streaming services pay to songwriters and music publishers. The proposal is still under review, and no rate has been approved. The request itself deserves a direct response: no.

Songwriters already receive a small portion of streaming revenue. Many recording artists write their music, and producers may hold writing credits. Asking those creators to accept less is another example of a large corporation treating creative labor as a cost to reduce.

Amazon can describe its proposal through economic models, licensing formulas and disputes with major publishers. The result is simpler. If the company gets what it requested, the percentage assigned to songs would fall. That would further devalue the people whose work gives Amazon Music something to sell.

What Amazon is asking for

The proposal was filed in Phonorecords V, the Copyright Royalty Board proceeding that will set United States mechanical royalty rates for interactive streaming from 2028 through 2032. A mechanical royalty pays for the written song, including its lyrics, melody and other composition rights. That money goes to songwriters and publishers.

This is separate from the royalty paid for the sound recording, which a label or independent artist may own. Amazon is not directly proposing a cut to recording royalties. Many recording artists are still affected because they also write songs, produce music or own their publishing.

The rules use several calculations to determine how much a streaming service owes for songs. The main one starts with a percentage of the service’s eligible revenue. The current agreement raises that percentage to 15.35 percent in 2027. Amazon wants it reduced to 13.4 percent from 2028 through 2032. That would leave a smaller pool to divide among songwriters and publishers.

There is no single fixed amount that Amazon pays an artist each time a song plays. The amount changes by subscription plan, country, advertising revenue and the artist’s agreements. One current industry estimate places Amazon Music’s artist-side payout at roughly $0.004 to $0.008 per stream. That is about $4 to $8 for 1,000 plays before a label, distributor, producer or collaborator takes a share. That estimate mainly describes recording income. The mechanical royalty being debated here is a separate songwriting payment and represents only part of the money generated by a stream.

The rules also consider Total Content Cost, which is tied to what Amazon pays record labels for access to recordings. Amazon wants the songwriter calculation connected to that cost reduced from 26.2 percent to 22.8 percent. For an ordinary paid plan that works across devices, Amazon wants a related per-subscriber amount reduced from $1.10 to 96 cents. It also wants the minimum mechanical payment reduced from 60 cents to 52 cents per subscriber.

Amazon is also seeking reductions for subscriptions that combine music with another service. Its filing treats Amazon Music Unlimited with Audible as one of those bundles. For these plans, Amazon wants to remove the calculation based on service revenue, reduce the Total Content Cost rate from 24.5 percent to 21.3 percent and lower the minimum from 33 cents to 29 cents per active subscriber.

Every major number in Amazon’s proposal moves in the same direction. The percentages fall, the per-subscriber amounts fall and the minimum payments fall.

These are opening positions in a legal rate-setting process. The Copyright Royalty Board can reject them, modify them or approve different terms. Spotify, Apple, Google and Pandora have proposed keeping the 15.35 percent rate. Songwriter and publisher groups are asking for an increase. Amazon is the major service in this group proposing a lower main rate.

Royalty payouts should be increasing, not decreasing.

Amazon’s defense does not justify a pay cut

Amazon says rates should be lowered because publishers and labels have too much market power. It also cites disputes over music-and-audiobook bundles, app store commissions, public-domain music and fraudulent accounts.

Some of those accounting questions can be considered on their own. Streaming fraud should not divert money from legitimate creators. Public-domain works require proper treatment. App store fees can be examined with evidence. None of that requires a broad reduction in the percentages and minimum payments assigned to copyrighted songs.

Amazon chose to combine music with Audible audiobooks. If that package creates a difficult royalty calculation, the company should build a system that pays creators fairly. The cost of Amazon’s product strategy should not be transferred to songwriters through lower statutory rates.

The company also argues that major publishers possess too much market power. There is room to criticize publishing contracts, collection practices and the share of money that reaches writers. A dispute between Amazon and large publishers does not make a songwriter pay cut acceptable. Writers should not receive less because two groups with greater bargaining power disagree over the terms.

Hip-hop shows why composition rights matter

In hip-hop, one person can be an artist, songwriter and producer on the same record. An MC writes verses, a producer may own part of the composition and a sampled work can bring earlier writers into the credits. Each contribution affects how publishing is divided.

That means a mechanical royalty policy is not an abstract fight limited to corporate publishing offices. It affects people who write lyrics, arrange musical ideas and create the underlying songs. Independent artists can be affected across several rights because they may own their masters, write their material and administer part of their publishing.

Within that system, lowering the statutory calculation matters even when each individual stream produces a small amount. Catalogs generate revenue across years. Songs are replayed, sampled, licensed and passed between generations of listeners. Reducing the composition rate weakens one of the few regulated forms of compensation available to writers who cannot negotiate directly with a company the size of Amazon.

Cheap access should not require cheaper creators

Streaming services have trained listeners to expect access to vast music catalogs for one monthly fee. That convenience has value. It also depends on an enormous supply of recorded work made across decades, genres and communities.

Amazon benefits when music encourages subscribers to keep using its products. Music supports subscriptions, devices, voice assistants, advertising and a wider relationship with customers. The company can combine those services because artists and songwriters made the work people want to hear.

Record stores did not set the royalty rate for every artist whose albums they stocked. They bought inventory through labels and distributors, negotiated wholesale terms and chose a retail price. If a store discounted an album, it usually accepted less profit on the sale. It did not ask a federal board to reduce what every songwriter could earn. Amazon’s decisions about subscription prices and bundles should not determine that creators deserve less.

Royalty payouts should be increasing, not decreasing. Streaming subscriptions have become a standard way to hear music, and the services depend on a catalog created across generations. When platforms raise prices, add paid features or use music to support other products, creator compensation should rise with the value the music provides.

If Amazon wants to offer more features at a competitive price, it can accept a smaller return on the bundle or charge customers an honest price for the package. Corporate scale should create more capacity to pay creators, not a stronger argument for paying them less.

Publishing revenue growth does not prove that writers are overpaid. It can reflect more subscribers, higher prices and increased listening. The relevant question is whether creators receive a fair share of the revenue their songs generate.

The major publishers do not deserve automatic support in every dispute. Their contracts and accounting should face scrutiny, and the songwriter groups’ request for higher rates should be judged on evidence. Opposition to Amazon’s cuts does not require approval of every competing proposal. It only requires recognizing that 13.4 percent would reduce songwriter compensation.

The proposal states a corporate priority

Royalty proceedings are full of formulas because the rules must work across many services and business models. The formulas still express decisions about value. Amazon’s proposal assigns a smaller percentage and lower minimums to the songs its customers stream.

That is why this filing should be opposed. It asks creators to give up income so one of the world’s largest corporations can improve the economics of its streaming products. Calling the reduction modest does not change the amount that writers would lose.

Music is labor, authorship and property. The people who create it should not finance corporate growth through lower royalty rates. The Copyright Royalty Board should reject Amazon’s proposed reductions, and listeners should understand what the company is asking for: more control over music revenue and less money assigned to the people who write the songs.