India’s music revenue has slipped. Legacy labels like Saregama and Tips have seen their stock drop. Some say it is a small correction. I believe it signals something deeper.
The industry has placed too much faith in streaming. That bet is no longer safe.
This is not just India’s story. It is a warning for the world.
Streaming Has Stalled
Streaming rescued music from piracy. It created recurring revenue and global access. But the model is slowing.
In India, Wynk and Resso have already shut shop. Globally, subscription fatigue is rising. Payouts remain too low for the value music generates.
Streaming is not the future anymore. It is the present, and it is flattening.
What Comes Next
The path forward lies beyond streaming. Four priorities can unlock growth:
1. Regional and niche catalogues India has music in more than 22 languages. Globally, local sounds are travelling faster than ever. Diversity is the next frontier.
2. Sync and licensing Film, OTT, games, and advertising still underpay music relative to its value and audience engagement. Sync is already a lifeline in many markets. It should be central, not secondary.
3. Creator-direct income Fan subscriptions, live shows, memberships, and direct deals are here to stay. Building your own audience is the safest hedge against market shifts.
4. Policy and rights reform Royalties in India are still blocked by weak systems and bad metadata. The same problem exists worldwide still bottlenecked by weak systems. Without clean data and transparent rights management, creators will always lose.
The Crossroads
The lesson is clear. Streaming alone will not sustain us. Growth will come when the industry fixes rights, expands licensing, and empowers creators to go direct.
This moment is make-or-break. For India. For the world.
And for every artist, composer, and label; the real question is simple:
Are you chasing streams, or building something that lasts beyond them?
What if you could generate a hit song with AI, only to find out you don’t actually own it. It can get worse, you can’t stop someone else from stealing it? That’s the unsettling reality at the heart of a new legal battle between AI music generator Suno and a group of independent artists.
Suno’s core defence is bold: their AI doesn’t “sample” music, it generates entirely new sounds. Therefore, they argue, it can’t infringe copyright. It’s a technicality that could reshape the entire industry.
The Legal Defence: Section 114(b) (U.S.)and “No Sampling”
At the heart of Suno’s case is a specific part of US copyright law that protects the actual sound of a recording. Suno argues that since it doesn’t copy-paste audio snippets (samples), they are following the law. So even if an AI song sounds identical to an existing track, it isn’t a “sample” in the legal sense.
It’s a bold stance. If courts accept it, AI music could be shielded from many infringement claims.
Think of it like this: It’s the difference between someone stealing a master recording from your hard drive (illegal) and a soundalike singer perfectly imitating your voice on a new track (a legal gray area). Suno claims it’s only doing the latter.
The Other Battle: Copyrightability of AI Works
But here’s the twist. While Suno is defending itself in court, its own help pages tell users something important:
If you’re on the free plan, Suno owns the songs (you can use them only non-commercially).
If you’re on Pro or Premier, you own the songs and can monetise them.
But and this is key: 100% AI-generated songs may not qualify for copyright protection in many jurisdictions, including the US, because they aren’t created by a human.
So Suno’s legal defence is about avoiding infringement, but its terms warn users that they might not be able to protect their own songs under copyright law.
Why This Matters for Creators
This creates a bizarre “ownership paradox.” You might have a license to sell the song, but you can’t call the police if someone else takes it. This isn’t an abstract legal debate. It’s about whether a creator using AI can build a sustainable career, or if their work will forever be vulnerable to theft with no recourse.
This dual reality puts creators in a tricky position:
You may be able to distribute and monetise your Suno tracks.
But if someone copies or mimics them, you may struggle to claim legal protection — unless you’ve added your own human authorship, like writing lyrics or melodies yourself.
For independent artists, this is the tension. AI tools open new creative doors, but they also raise questions about ownership, protection, and long-term value of IP.
The Bigger Picture
Suno’s motion comes as AI companies face lawsuits worldwide — from US majors like Universal and Warner to Germany’s GEMA. At the same time, federal courts have recently sided with AI platforms in book-related cases, strengthening the “fair use” argument for training AI models.
The outcome of these cases will decide not just whether AI platforms survive, but also how creators and rights-holders get compensated (if at all).
My Take
Suno’s argument is clever: “we don’t sample, so we don’t infringe.” But for artists, the bigger issue is different: even if you create something on Suno, can you truly own it?
Until copyright law catches up, creators using AI music tools should think carefully:
Add human authorship (lyrics, composition input) wherever possible.
Check licensing terms before distributing AI music.
Remember that monetisation ≠ copyright protection.
The AI music revolution isn’t just about technology. It’s about redefining who gets to own, protect, and profit from creativity.
So I want to hear from you: Where should the line be drawn? Does a human just need to type the prompt to claim copyright, or should they have to write melodies and lyrics themselves? Share your take in the comments.
A new UK report on music tech funding reveals critical gaps in support for innovation. For India’s booming music market, these lessons aren’t just interesting; they’re an urgent wake-up call to build the infrastructure our creators deserve.
When Music Technology UK (MTUK) released its Sound Investments’ report earlier this month, one theme stood out: innovation in music tech is moving fast, but funding and policy support are still playing catch-up.
I found myself reading it less as a UK story and more as a mirror for India.
The UK’s Funding Landscape
The report doesn’t just celebrate startups experimenting with AI composition or next-gen royalty systems. It also highlights the gaps: fragmented support networks, too little growth capital, and the difficulty of turning a smart prototype into a scalable business.
Even with government recognition of creative industries, music tech often feels like the “niche within the niche.” Seed funding is available, but scaling beyond that remains the real hurdle.
India’s Parallel Reality
I’ve seen promising startups stall.India’s context is different but surprisingly parallel. Just last week, I spoke with a founder building a brilliant solution for Indian regional music but can’t get past the investors because they don’t understand the market. They want them to shoot regional songs in UK!
Streaming consumption is surging, short video and OTT platforms are reshaping listening, and we have no shortage of tech talent.
Yet ask yourself: where are the dedicated music tech funds?
I’ve seen promising startups in rights management, metadata standardisation, transparent royalty accounting, and sync tools stall; not because the ideas lack merit, but because the funding pipeline doesn’t exist. Unlike the UK, where at least there’s structured dialogue, India hasn’t even begun to place music tech on its policy or investment map.
Why This Matters: It’s About the Invisible Plumbing
This isn’t only about new platforms or apps. It’s about finally fixing the broken, invisible plumbing of our industry. The things creators rarely see but always feel: missing royalties, opaque deals, underreported plays, delayed payments.
Without investment in this infrastructure, Indian IP risks staying dependent on global platforms instead of building long-term value at home.
The Takeaway: A Call for Recognition
What I admire about the UK report is its honesty. They acknowledge that capital doesn’t always flow to where innovation is. For India, that’s a wake-up call.
We don’t need to wait for a government white paper. The time for action is now. We need investors, policymakers, and the music industry to start recognising music tech not as an add-on, but as the infrastructure that will decide whether our creators thrive or simply survive.
Because the real question isn’t whether Indian artists will keep growing globally… they already are. The question is whether our technology and capital will grow with them, or whether that value will once again slip away to others.
Last week, screenshots of TikTok’s website appearing live in India created a sudden buzz. Many thought, “Is it back?!” and hope ran high.
But within hours, both government sources and TikTok confirmed that the ban imposed in June 2020 is still in place. What people saw was most likely a technical glitch, not a policy change.
Still, that moment revealed something much bigger: Indian creators are starved for real platform opportunities that go beyond quick dance trends.
The Promise TikTok Once Held
TikTok was more than an app. It carried three powerful opportunities for the Indian music and creator ecosystem:
A modern-day A and R engine: a viral clip could resurrect an old track or break a new one overnight, creating real royalty flows.
Democratised access: anyone, from Bhopal to Bombay, had the chance to go global.
A vital promotional channel: especially for younger listeners, where song discovery often began.
What Vanished With TikTok
When TikTok disappeared, it was not just an app that vanished; it was an entire economic lifeline.
Creators from tier-2 and tier-3 towns didn’t vanish: they simply had to migrate. YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels offered new platforms, but they couldn’t replicate TikTok’s intuitive design or algorithmic power. Many creators are still waiting to regain the reach and ease of growth TikTok once provided.
Regional voices that were finding the spotlight went quiet.
Shorts and Reels filled the space, but many creators never regained their reach. The algorithms shifted and visibility dried up.
The UMG TikTok Detente
Earlier this year, Universal Music Group pulled its catalog from TikTok in a major licensing showdown. That dispute has now been resolved, and with it came new protections for artist rights and restrictions on AI misuse.
This is important for Indian creators. It shows that platforms can be negotiated with. But this only happens when artists, publishers, and managers know the value of their work.
Your Arsenal – What Artists Should Do Now
For Indian creators, the TikTok “phantom return” is a reminder to build strong foundations. Some immediate steps:
Treat metadata as your digital deed : always embed ISRC and ISWC codes before publishing. Today, over sixty percent of Indian indie releases still lack them.
Diversify your reach : do not depend on one algorithm. Build communities through WhatsApp, email lists, YouTube, and regional platforms.
Know your value : when licensing, insert strong terms and penalty clauses to prevent misuse.
Use AI wisely : great for demos and marketing, but never as a substitute for your creative soul.
The Indian Moment – Are We Ready?
If TikTok ever does make a formal return, it will come with strings attached; local compliance, data rules, and Indian partnerships. The bigger question is not if it returns, but will we be ready.
Will metadata be clean and consistent?
Will creators be able to carry their audiences across platforms?
Will contracts protect rather than exploit them?
The phantom return may not have delivered change, but it revealed exactly what needs fixing: metadata, rights clarity, and smart diversification.
Final Word
If you are building a music career and want to safeguard both your art and your business, let us connect. The right strategy today ensures your music earns fairly tomorrow.
