Here’s exactly what Amazon, Spotify, Apple and other streaming services want to pay songwriters for 2028–2032
The major streaming services and music publishers have submitted competing proposals to the US Copyright Royalty Board for songwriter mechanical royalty rates from 2028 to 2032. Spotify, Apple, Google and Pandora want to retain the rates set for 2027, Amazon proposes a cut, and publishers are seeking a substantial increase, setting up a dispute over how streaming revenue should be shared with songwriters.
The current headline rate is 15.3% of service revenue in 2026 and is due to reach 15.35% in 2027. Amazon proposes reducing it to 13.4%, while the publishers’ proposal would require services to pay the greatest of 20% of revenue, 40% of payments to record labels, $2.40 per subscriber each month, or $0.004 per play. The rate is an all-in figure, with performance royalties deducted to calculate the mechanical royalty; bundle rules are also a major point of disagreement.
- Four services want 2027 rates to continue through 2032.
- Amazon proposes a 13.4% headline rate.
- Publishers seek up to 20% of revenue or other payment floors.
New here? Start with this
Songwriters earn royalties when their music is streamed, and US rules set how streaming services pay for the right to reproduce their songs. The Copyright Royalty Board, a US government body, sets the rates for five-year periods after hearing proposals from music services and music publishers.
The dispute concerns mechanical royalties, one part of the payment for using a song. Services including Spotify, Apple, Google, Pandora and Amazon have proposed rates, while publishers represent songwriters and seek payment on their behalf. The proposals would determine how streaming revenue is shared between these groups and songwriters.
The headline rate is an all-in figure: performance royalties, which cover the public playing of music, are deducted to calculate the mechanical payment. How bundled subscriptions are treated is also disputed, because it affects how much revenue is counted for royalties.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Songwriters and publishers can argue that streaming relies on their work and that royalties should reflect its value, especially as services earn revenue from subscriptions, advertising and bundles. Their proposed formula would raise the minimum payment and offer different safeguards against low per-play or per-subscriber returns, supporting fair compensation as listening and business models change.
The case against
Streaming services can argue that retaining current rates, or reducing them, helps keep music subscriptions affordable and leaves room to invest in products, licensing and a broad catalogue. They may also contend that a steep increase, particularly alongside complex bundle rules, could raise costs without reliably translating into higher or more evenly distributed earnings for songwriters.