Artist Rights & Platform Accountability act

---

1 The Artist Rights & Platform Accountability Act 2 Introduction & Purpose 3 The Artist Rights & Platform Accountability Act is a federal 4 legislative proposal designed to protect independent musicians and 5 creators from unjust fraud accusations, metadata tampering, 6 premature removal from streaming services, and digital erasure. 7 These practices harm artistic careers, erase cultural contributions, 8 and misallocate income on a national scale. 9 10 In 2023, the U.S. music industry generated over $10.3 billion in 11 revenue (RIAA). Yet independent artists — the backbone of that 12 growth — are increasingly silenced by fraud flags with no appeals 13 process, takedowns without notice, and distributors who profit 14 from royalty misdirection without transparency or consequence. 15 16 This isn’t just a cultural issue — it’s an economic one. Misapplied 17 fraud flags and royalty theft don’t just impact creators — they 18 reduce taxable income, distort the digital labor market, and 19 undermine confidence in the music economy. Improper takedowns 20 and untraceable royalties enable offshore laundering, disrupt IRS 21 revenue collection, and weaken oversight of a multi-billion-dollar 22 sector. 23 24 The Act establishes a centralized oversight agency (NOMES), 25 restores due process for artists, and demands accountability from 26 platforms, curators, and distributors alike — not only to protect Page 2 of 42 27 creative rights but to safeguard U.S. cultural and financial 28 infrastructure in the digital age 29 30 Bill Objectives 31 This legislation is built around four pillars: Accountability, Royalty 32 Oversight, Economic Protection, and Artist Empowerment. Its 33 enforcement will be overseen by a new independent agency: 34 NOMES (National Organization for Music and Economic Safety). 35 Repetition is not coordinated fraud. Fans don’t loop music to boost 36 payouts — they loop music because it resonates, emotionally or 37 socially. Platforms that misinterpret this behavior risk penalizing 38 the very engagement they depend on. 39 Neglecting due process causes career collapses, tax revenue losses, 40 and misallocated royalties — all of which ripple into the U.S. 41 economy. Music isn’t just art; it’s labor and business. 42 Artist Rights & Platform Accountability Act 43 Section 1 — Definitions 44 1.1 Digital Service Provider (DSP) 45 Any platform that streams, sells, or monetizes music digitally, 46 including but not limited to Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music, 47 Amazon Music, and Tidal. 48 1.2 Distribution Partner 49 Any company or entity responsible for delivering music to DSPs on 50 behalf of the artist, including but not limited to DistroKid, 51 TuneCore, CD Baby, Horus Music, UnitedMasters, and Amuse. Page 3 of 42 52 1.3 Streaming Fraud 53 The use of artificial, deceptive, or automated methods to inflate 54 play counts or generate royalties. Includes, but is not limited to: 55 phone farms, bots, repeated stream loops, or services that offer 56 guaranteed streams for a fee. 57 58 Cultural Context of Repetition — Not Fraud 59 60 Listening to music on repeat is not inherently suspicious — it’s 61 cultural. From workouts to weddings, fans repeat songs because 62 they love them, not to exploit streaming systems. 63 64 This was made clear when Kendrick Lamar performed “Not Like 65 Us” six times in a row at his Juneteenth Pop Out concert in Los 66 Angeles — an iconic, culturally resonant moment. Similarly, Jay-Z 67 and Kanye West performed “N***** in Paris” twelve times in one 68 night while touring Paris. These moments reflect how musical 69 repetition is celebration, not manipulation. 70 71 Listeners don’t repeat songs to increase payouts. They repeat them 72 because a track speaks to them — emotionally, socially, or 73 culturally. Criminalizing that behavior devalues how people 74 experience music. 75 76 This bill clarifies: Repetition by fans is not fraud unless clear, 77 automated manipulation is proven. 78 79 80 1.4 Bot 81 An automated or non-human process used to inflate streaming 82 numbers. Includes AI-generated listeners, device farms, and 83 automated replay software. 84 1.5 Locked-Out Artist 85 An artist who is unable to access their DSP or distributor accounts 86 due to account termination, content removal, or denial of appeal. 87 These artists are denied due process and often become invisible on 88 DSPs despite continued platform activity involving their content. 89 1.6 Fraudulent Playlist 90 A playlist composed or operated by bad actors (including bots or 91 pay-for-play curators) that is not supported by genuine listener 92 activity, often used to inflate streams artificially. 93 1.7 Algorithmic Playlist 94 A playlist generated by a DSP’s internal algorithms, such as 95 Spotify’s Discover Weekly or Release Radar, based on user 96 behavior and engagement patterns. 97 1.8 Internal Playlist 98 A playlist created by a distributor, DSP, or affiliated third party and 99 branded in a way that resembles public, editorial, or organic 100 playlists. These must be disclosed as internal when used for 101 promotion or marketing purposes. 102 1.9 Editorial Playlist 103 A playlist curated by official editorial teams or DSP-appointed 104 curators. These playlists are widely followed and presented as 105 organic, trustworthy sources of music discovery. 106 1.10 Metadata 107 All information tied to a musical work or recording, including artist Page 5 of 42 108 name, songwriter, producer credits, ISRC codes, publishing splits, 109 and release date. 110 1.11 Transparency Tools 111 Platforms such as Spotify for Artists or Apple Music for Artists, 112 which are intended to give creators visibility into playlisting, 113 demographics, and royalty flow. This bill mandates improvements 114 to these tools. 115 1.12 Royalty Theft 116 Any failure to pay or intentional withholding of royalties owed to 117 an artist, including the removal of songs or catalogs after revenue 118 has been earned, without fair compensation or due process. 119 1.13 Shadowbanning 120 A form of soft censorship wherein an artist’s music remains live but 121 is removed from visibility in searches, recommendations, or 122 playlists. Often used to quietly suppress accounts without formal 123 takedown. 124 1.14 NOMES (National Organization for Music Economic Safety) 125 The federally supervised body proposed in this bill to oversee 126 fraud reviews, enforce transparency, and protect artists’ rights in 127 the digital music economy. 128 1.15 Innocent Until Proven Fraudulent Clause (Universal 129 Protections) 130 A core principle of this bill that assumes the artist’s innocence until 131 verifiable, independently reviewed evidence of fraud is established. 132 Applies to all artists, curators, and rightsholders — regardless of 133 registry status. Page 6 of 42 134 Section 2 — Protected Rights for Artists 135 This section affirms the foundational rights of artists operating 136 within the digital music economy. It ensures fair treatment, due 137 process, transparency, and mechanisms for recourse in cases of 138 wrongful removal, fraud accusations, or account access denial. 139 2.1 — Right to Due Process Prior to Takedown 140 No distributor, label, or digital service provider (DSP) may remove 141 an artist’s work from streaming platforms without providing prior 142 written notice and an opportunity for the artist to respond. 143 Automated detection or algorithmic suspicion alone does not 144 constitute sufficient justification for takedown. 145 2.2 — Notice and Evidence Requirement 146 Before initiating a takedown or account suspension, platforms 147 must provide the artist with: 148 - A formal explanation outlining the basis for the action, including 149 the specific nature of the alleged violation. 150 - Access to relevant data, logs, or reports used to justify the 151 decision. 152 - A minimum of fifteen (15) business days to respond, dispute the 153 claim, or file an appeal. 154 2.3 — Right to Appeal Through NOMES 155 Artists shall have the right to appeal any takedown or suspension 156 through the National Organization for Music Economic and Safety 157 (NOMES). Upon receipt of an appeal, NOMES shall: 158 - Conduct an independent investigation of the claim. 159 - Notify the relevant distributor, DSP, or label of the appeal. 160 - Temporarily freeze further punitive action until the appeal is 161 resolved. 162 2.4 — Protocol for Locked-Out Artists 163 Artists who have been locked out of their distributor or DSP 164 account—rendering them unable to respond—may report the issue 165 directly to NOMES. These cases shall be flagged for expedited 166 investigation, and NOMES shall make good-faith efforts to contact 167 the artist via alternative means. Such cases will be treated as 168 potential violations of artist rights. 169 2.5 — Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof 170 If a takedown occurs before a NOMES investigation is completed: 171 - The artist shall be presumed innocent. 172 - The burden of proof lies with the platform or distributor. 173 - If the investigation confirms wrongful removal, the following 174 remedies must be enacted: 175 - Return of all withheld royalties. 176 - Compensation for damages, including financial loss and career 177 harm. 178 - A formal public acknowledgment of the mistake by the 179 responsible entity. 180 - Restoration of platform visibility, algorithmic parity, and search 181 functionality. No shadowbanning, downranking, or related 182 retaliation may occur. 183 184 2.6 — Metadata Misattribution Accountability 185 Artists have the right to accurate representation of their 186 intellectual property across all platforms. Distributors and digital 187 service providers (DSPs) shall be held accountable for any Page 8 of 42 188 metadata errors that result in a release being uploaded to the 189 wrong artist profile, misattributed to another party, or mislabeled 190 in title, artwork, or credits. These mistakes are not cosmetic — they 191 fracture audience engagement, misdirect royalties, and jeopardize 192 an artist’s digital footprint. Distributors and DSPs must implement 193 quality control systems to prevent such errors, offer clear channels 194 for urgent metadata corrections, and publicly acknowledge 195 significant attribution issues. If not resolved within 14 days of 196 notice by the artist, the issue shall trigger enforcement measures, 197 including financial penalties, mandatory royalty reimbursements, 198 and access to independent arbitration. 199 200 2.7 — National Economic Protection 201 These rights are not only a matter of fairness for individual 202 artists—they also support national economic integrity by: 203 - Ensuring accurate royalty payments. 204 - Preventing revenue loss through unlawful removal. 205 - Enabling proper taxation of music-related income. 206 207 Wrongful takedowns, unreviewed fraud flags, and unnotified 208 account suspensions contribute to the suppression of legitimate 209 American labor, undermine small businesses, and disrupt the flow 210 of royalties into the broader U.S. economy. 211 2.8 — Data Portability and Pre-Takedown Access 212 213 Artists shall retain the right to access and export all data related 214 to their content prior to or during any fraud investigation. This 215 includes but is not limited to: streaming statistics, earnings 216 reports, metadata records, playlist placements, advertising 217 spend, and traffic origin breakdowns. 218 Page 9 of 42 219 In the event of a fraud flag or takedown, digital platforms and 220 distributors must provide a downloadable report within 7 221 business days of notice — regardless of whether the artist s 222 account has been locked or removed. 223 224 This ensures that artists are not severed from their own work, 225 cannot be gaslit by manipulated data, and retain the ability to 226 defend their career, royalties, and reputation with transparency. 227 228 Any failure to comply with these data access requirements shall 229 constitute grounds for investigation under NOMES oversight. 230 231 2.9 Cultural Impact and Erasure 232 233 The removal or suppression of independent artists does not 234 occur in a vacuum — it actively threatens cultural memory, 235 representation, and legacy. When artists are silenced due to 236 false fraud accusations, algorithmic takedowns, or negligent 237 oversight, the public loses access to potentially transformative 238 works. Music is not only a form of expression — it is a record of 239 social history. 240 241 Imagine if artists like Eminem, whose music helped define the 242 early 2000s and inspired films like 8 Mile, had been deplatformed 243 before reaching the mainstream. Or if Black artists who 244 contributed to the Black Panther soundtrack — a landmark 245 moment for cultural representation — had their work removed 246 without due process. Even in more recent years, artists like Billie 247 Eilish, whose minimalist bedroom pop redefined mainstream 248 aesthetics, or Playboi Carti, whose experimental approach 249 reshaped the sound of an entire generation, could have been 250 prematurely silenced under today s opaque fraud systems. 251 These are not hypotheticals for the next wave of creators. Artists 252 working today deserve the same chance to shape culture without 253 the looming threat of invisible censorship, misclassification, or 254 unaccountable removals. 255 256 Section 2.10 — Educational & Nonprofit Exemption 257 258 Music released by nonprofit organizations, accredited schools, or 259 educational programs — including student projects, therapeutic 260 recordings, or community initiatives — shall not be subject to 261 automatic fraud flags based solely on irregular streaming 262 behavior. These works must be reviewed within context, with 263 consideration for their noncommercial nature. NOMES shall 264 provide special intake procedures for nonprofit groups to report 265 wrongful takedowns or fraud flags and receive expedited 266 resolution. 267 268 2.11 — Minimum Appeal Window 269 270 Artists shall have no less than 3 months from the date of content 271 removal to file an appeal, regardless of any internal policy from 272 digital platforms or distributors. In cases involving locked 273 accounts, mental health hardship, or lack of legal support, 274 NOMES may extend this appeal window to a maximum of 6 275 months upon request. 276 277 Once an appeal is filed, no artist s content shall be permanently 278 removed or hidden from streaming platforms until NOMES 279 independently verifies and confirms fraudulent activity. 280 Premature takedowns before a confirmed finding constitute a 281 violation of this Act. 282 283 For complex or high-impact fraud allegations, NOMES may 284 extend its investigation window up to 8–12 months to ensure 285 thorough and impartial review. Once a final determination is 286 made, the artist shall immediately become eligible for all 287 restorative measures under this Act — including reinstatement, 288 royalty repayment, and metadata correction, as outlined in 289 Section 2.6 and Section 7.7. 290 291 Under this Act, the fraud allegation process begins when a DSP 292 or distributor formally submits a report to NOMES. However, Page 11 of 42 293 neither party shall take punitive action — including removals, 294 account lockouts, royalty withholding, or visibility suppression — 295 until NOMES completes its investigation and confirms the fraud 296 claim. The artist shall retain access to all rights and revenues 297 during the investigation unless NOMES determines otherwise 298 through due process. This ensures that the platforms responsible 299 for ecosystem integrity are held accountable for premature 300 enforcement, and that artists are not punished for unverified 301 claims or third-party misconduct. 302 303 This clause also affirms the national economic impact of 304 independent music. By ensuring fair treatment and accurate 305 oversight, NOMES may work with the Internal Revenue Service 306 (IRS) to trace royalty flows and verify that U.S. artists are 307 receiving their legally earned income — thereby promoting 308 proper taxation, financial transparency, and revenue collection in 309 support of American citizens and the broader creative economy. 310 311 Subsection 2.12— Social Media ≠ Streaming Value 312 In today’s industry culture, artists are often judged not by the 313 quality or impact of their music, but by their ability to generate 314 content for social media. This has led to a false and harmful 315 standard: that success on streaming platforms must be reflected by 316 proportional growth on social platforms — or else it’s assumed to 317 be fraudulent. This clause rejects that standard entirely and affirms 318 the validity of all legitimate organic success, regardless of social 319 media presence. 320 Policy Provisions: 321 1. Distinct Ecosystems, Distinct Metrics: 322 Social media metrics (followers, likes, engagement) and DSP 323 metrics (streams, saves, playlist adds) operate in different digital Page 12 of 42 324 ecosystems. Their growth patterns are not required to mirror each 325 other, nor do they validate one another. 326 2. The Replayability Principle: 327 The most valuable music is often defined not by its social media 328 shareability, but by its replay value and lasting emotional 329 resonance. From Kendrick Lamar to underground beat tapes, many 330 culturally vital works succeed in silence — not virality. 331 3. DSP-Only Success Is Valid: 332 A creator may experience significant organic growth on streaming 333 platforms without corresponding growth on social media. This 334 growth is valid, protected, and shall not be treated as evidence of 335 fraud. 336 4. Dark Virality Exists: 337 Some songs spread through closed communities, private sharing, 338 or offline scenes. These listening patterns may not generate visible 339 shares — but they generate real replay value. Platforms must 340 recognize and respect this form of cultural movement. 341 5. Prohibition on Metric Comparison for Fraud Detection: 342 Distributors and DSPs are prohibited from flagging artists as 343 fraudulent based solely on perceived mismatches between social 344 media and streaming performance. 345 6. Inter-DSP Discrepancies Are Not Evidence of Fraud: 346 Artists may experience uneven performance across streaming 347 platforms — for example, a song may thrive on Apple Music but 348 underperform on Spotify, or vice versa. These platform-specific 349 differences are natural and cannot be used as sole indicators of 350 fraud or manipulation. 351 7. Replayable Music Reaching the Right Audience Is a Positive 352 Outcome: 353 Discrepancies between DSP performance and social media growth 354 — or between one DSP and another — should be interpreted as 355 signs of algorithmic success, not fraud. 356 357 If a streaming platform surfaces a song that connects deeply with 358 real listeners, even when the artist has minimal social media 359 presence, that is evidence that the system worked. 360 361 A song like “what the hell what the helly” may go viral due to 362 absurdity or meme value — similar to the satirical music of Yuno 363 Miles, which thrives on platforms like TikTok and Instagram 364 through its intentionally bizarre aesthetic. These songs may 365 succeed as memes — and that success is valid in its own lane. In 366 contrast, a composition like “Weird Fishes / Arpeggi” by Radiohead 367 has no dance challenge, no algorithm bait, and no viral trend — yet 368 it continues to be one of the most replayed and emotionally 369 resonant tracks in modern music history. 370 371 DSPs must learn to distinguish between flash-in-the-pan content 372 and meaningful, slow-burn success — and recognize the latter as 373 an essential function of a healthy, human-centered music 374 ecosystem. 375 8. Organic Sharing Exists Outside Social Media: 376 Music can spread through human networks that leave no digital 377 footprint. Word-of-mouth recommendations, private text 378 messages, group chats, in-person interactions, or even hearing a 379 song played at a local business — these are all valid and time380 tested pathways of musical discovery. Page 14 of 42 381 382 A track’s share value cannot be measured solely by its performance 383 on social platforms. An artist may reach large audiences simply by 384 having a strong personal network, community support, or cultural 385 relevance in offline spaces. 386 387 DSPs and fraud detection systems must recognize that real 388 listeners often discover and share music in ways that are not 389 tracked by likes, shares, or retweets — and that this organic spread 390 is not only valid, but vital to music culture. 391 Cultural Respect Clause: 392 Music is not content. 393 The music industry must recognize that not every song is a meme, 394 a trend, or a viral dance. Some are compositions. Some are 395 movements. Some are just good music. 396 397 Streaming platforms must respect the artist’s right to exist outside 398 of the social media algorithm — and within the streaming services 399 algorithm. A song’s worth is not defined by how many followers the 400 artist has, but by how deeply it resonates when played. Whether it 401 spreads through private playlists, emotional connection, or cultural 402 moment, it deserves protection and respect. 403 Real-World Context: 404 This clause was informed by the experience of independent artist 405 and producer Kenan Ali Erkan, known as Ali Prod, who reached 406 over 500,000 streams without a large social media following — 407 only to be wrongfully flagged due to an industry assumption that 408 success without virality must mean fraud. Page 15 of 42 409 Final Cultural Dagger: 410 “In meetings with labels and distributors, artists are increasingly 411 asked: What’s your social media strategy? instead of What’s your 412 next musical project?” 413 414 This inversion of values signals a systemic failure — one that 415 prioritizes content output over creative output. The Artist Rights & 416 Platform Accountability Act demands that we reverse this trend 417 and return music to the center of the music industry. 418 419 Section 3 — Distribution Oversight and Royalty Protections 420 This section establishes federal oversight of music distributors, 421 labels, and digital service providers (DSPs) to ensure accurate 422 royalty payments, transparent artist treatment, and accountability 423 for mismanagement or fraud. 424 3.1 — Royalty Accuracy Standards 425 - Distributors and DSPs must provide artists with clear, itemized 426 royalty statements. 427 - Statements must disclose total streams, payout per stream, fees 428 deducted, and destination of funds. 429 - All financial statements must be audit-ready and retained for 7 430 years. 431 3.2 — Mandatory Royalty Transparency Tools 432 - Platforms must display real-time earnings and streaming data to 433 artists. 434 - Earnings must be broken down by DSP, territory, and currency. 435 - Artists must be able to track royalties from DSP to distributor to 436 payout. 437 3.3 — NOMES Audit Authority 438 - NOMES may audit distributors and DSPs on a rolling basis (every 439 3–6 months). 440 - Failure to comply or obstruction of audit will result in legal 441 penalties. 442 - NOMES may refer fraud, tax evasion, or royalty theft to the DOJ 443 and IRS. 444 3.4 — Illegal Practices and Penalties 445 - It is illegal to remove music, withhold royalties, or shadowban 446 artists without verified cause and due process. 447 - Violators must return royalties, pay damages, and face civil or 448 criminal charges. 449 - Repeated offenses may lead to federal takeover of artist 450 distribution for affected American creators. 451 3.5 — Fair Access for Independent Artists 452 - Distributors must not deny service or remove content based 453 solely on volume of streams or perceived risk. 454 - Algorithms and fraud detection systems must be independently 455 verified and transparent to NOMES. 456 - All takedown actions must be reviewed by a human, not solely AI 457 or automation. 458 Section 3.6 — Loudness Transparency and Playback Control 459 Artist & Public Access to Loudness Normalization Data 460 All digital streaming platforms (DSPs) shall publicly disclose loudness Page 17 of 42 461 normalization information for every published audio work. The 462 following data must be made available: 463 • The original LUFS (integrated) level of the uploaded master 464 • The gain adjustment applied during normalization (e.g., “-3.1 465 dB”) 466 • The final playback LUFS level as rendered to listeners 467 This information must be clearly displayed in two locations: 468 1. The artist-facing dashboard (e.g., Spotify for Artists, YouTube 469 Studio) 470 2. The public-facing track or album interface, accessible to any user 471 (e.g., via an information panel, toggle, or expanded playback 472 metadata) 473 Listener Playback Normalization Toggle 474 All DSPs must provide end users with the ability to enable or disable 475 loudness normalization during playback. This toggle shall be: 476 • Included in the platform’s playback or audio settings 477 • Available to both free and paid users 478 • Accompanied by a clear explanation stating: 479 “Normalization reduces volume differences between songs. 480 Disabling this will allow playback using the artist’s original 481 dynamics and loudness.” 482 Optional Artist Bypass for Preserved Masters 483 Artists may request normalization bypass if their master meets the 484 following conditions: 485 • The track has a true peak of -1.0 dBTP or lower 486 • The file is certified free from audible distortion or clipping 487 • The artist or mastering engineer submits a playback integrity 488 declaration Page 18 of 42 489 In such cases, the DSP shall honor the bypass request and render the 490 track without gain reduction by default, unless the user has 491 normalization enabled in their settings. 492 Purpose 493 This section ensures transparency in loudness manipulation, protects 494 artistic intent, and empowers both artists and listeners to control the 495 dynamic and playback integrity of published works. 496 497 Section 4 — Transparent Fraud Review Standards 498 This section establishes clear guidelines for how DSPs and 499 distributors must handle fraud detection, investigations, and 500 communication. The goal is to eliminate vague or arbitrary 501 enforcement and protect artists from wrongful accusations rooted 502 in flawed data or misused technology. 503 4.1 — Verified Evidence Standard 504 No fraud-based takedown or penalty may occur without a 505 documented audit trail showing verified evidence of artificial 506 activity. Anonymous tips, vague algorithmic red flags, or 507 assumptions based on genre or region do not meet this standard. 508 4.2 — Disclosure of Reason for Takedown 509 If a track or profile is flagged for fraud, the distributor or DSP must 510 disclose: 511 - The specific reason for the flag 512 - The data that triggered it (e.g., unusual geographic activity, 513 repeated IPs, etc.) 514 - Whether the evidence was reviewed by a human 515 4.3 — NOMES Audit Rights 516 NOMES reserves the right to request full internal logs and 517 investigation data from any platform accused of false fraud 518 enforcement. Platforms must retain such data for at least 18 519 months after a takedown. 520 4.4 – Artificial Streaming Penalty Elimination 521 522 All charges, penalties, and financial seizures from DSPs related to 523 alleged “artificial streaming” are hereby suspended unless the 524 platform can: 525 1. Demonstrate a transparent and reproducible investigation, 526 and 527 2. Prove the artist intentionally engaged in fraudulent behavior 528 through documented, verifiable evidence. 529 530 Digital Service Providers (DSPs) must formally acknowledge their 531 role in cultivating and profiting from an ecosystem that enables 532 artificial streaming — including but not limited to phone farms, bot 533 networks, exploitative ad algorithms, and manipulative playlist 534 curators. DSPs may no longer offload liability for this flawed 535 infrastructure onto artists who operate in good faith. 536 537 Any deduction of royalties, account penalties, or takedowns based 538 on unproven or algorithmically inferred suspicions shall be 539 classified as unauthorized seizure of income and subject to legal 540 and financial restitution under this Act. 541 Page 20 of 42 542 Enforcement and Oversight: 543 The National Organization for Music and Economic Safety (NOMES) 544 shall be tasked with auditing DSP fraud claim procedures and 545 handling artist appeals related to artificial streaming accusations. 546 NOMES will maintain a national database of artist complaints and 547 ensure platforms comply with this provision or face federal 548 penalties and public reporting of non-compliance. 549 550 551 4.5 — Timeline for Review 552 Distributors and DSPs must review flagged accounts within 15 553 business days. Delays or silence beyond this period will be 554 considered negligent under this Act. 555 4.6 — False Positive Accountability 556 If an artist is found innocent after being flagged for fraud, they are 557 entitled to: 558 - Full restoration of royalties and visibility 559 - A formal apology 560 - Compensation for proven career damages 561 - Public correction of fraud designation 562 4.7 — Ban on Passive Enforcement 563 Platforms may not use passive enforcement tactics like 564 shadowbanning, silence, or indefinite withholding of royalties 565 without formal communication, review, and the option for appeal. Page 21 of 42 566 4.8 — Economic Safeguards 567 Wrongful takedowns that result in lost royalties impact not only 568 the artist, but also the broader economy. NOMES will track all such 569 cases and include lost taxes and unpaid royalties in national music 570 economy reports. 571 4.9 — Indicators of Cultural Negligence and Required 572 Investigation 573 574 Public-facing behavior from DSP CEOs and distributors during 575 mass takedown periods may reveal deeper issues of negligence, 576 mismanagement, or lack of oversight. 577 This negligence is not isolated — it reflects a deeper cultural 578 problem within the music tech elite. Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, whose 579 company dominates global streaming, has openly referred to music 580 as “just content” and publicly questioned, “What even is music?” 581 These statements, coming from the highest levels of power in the 582 industry, betray a fundamental misunderstanding — or outright 583 disregard — for the cultural, emotional, and economic value of 584 music as art. When both DSPs and distributors normalize this 585 detachment from the art itself, it reinforces the urgency for federal 586 oversight, artist protections, and legally enforceable standards. 587 These attitudes extend beyond Spotify. The CEO of DistroKid, one 588 of the largest independent distributors, has publicly downplayed 589 artist concerns and mocked complaints about fraud, takedowns, 590 and metadata issues across social media. When top executives treat 591 artist livelihoods like memes or marketing talking points, the 592 message is clear: the people profiting from the music economy 593 have little respect for the people creating it. 594 595 In January 2021, during a widespread wave of artist removals from 596 major streaming platforms, representatives of a leading U.S.-based 597 distributor made light of the situation on social media platform 598 Twitter (now known as X), posting the following: 599 600 “What food goes with whiskey? Planning my night.” — @DistroKid, 601 January 4, 2021, 4:55 PM (Twitter for iPhone) 602 603 Amid numerous artist complaints about withheld royalties, 604 wrongful removals, and unanswered support tickets, a public reply 605 stated: 606 607 “You should plan on either responding to my email and paying me 608 what’s owed or getting a defense lawyer because I’m going to be 609 owning a part of distrokid by the time I'm done.” — @PrestoX2, 610 January 4, 2021 611 612 Days later, the distributor followed up with: 613 614 “Sometimes I want to ask a question or advice here on Twitter, but 615 too scared it’ll get misconstrued & turn into a huge Twitter pile-on 616 (has happened). Is there a Twitter without pitchforks where 617 people (or companies) can be more open?” — @DistroKid, January 618 9, 2021, 12:06 AM Page 23 of 42 619 620 These public statements, issued during a period of industry-wide 621 disruption, reflect a concerning disregard for professional 622 responsibility and artist welfare. 623 624 As a distributor entrusted with the delivery and monetization of 625 American music — and thus with direct influence over U.S. 626 intellectual property, royalty flow, and creative labor — DistroKid 627 and other involved parties are expected to uphold the highest 628 standards of transparency and conduct. 629 630 Behavior like this, particularly when paired with mass removals 631 and lack of due process, constitutes a red flag for mismanagement 632 of American revenue, metadata, and artist rights. NOMES shall treat 633 such conduct as justification for formal audit and review. 634 635 Mandated Investigation 636 637 NOMES shall launch a retrospective investigation into the 638 coordinated or simultaneous artist removals that occurred in and 639 around January 2021, with specific attention to: 640 - Spotify (as the primary platform where many removals occurred), 641 - DistroKid (as the distributor named in numerous public 642 complaints), and 643 - Any additional DSPs or distributors shown to have participated in 644 mass content purges without notice, evidence, or appeal access. Page 24 of 42 645 646 This investigation shall include review of: 647 - Internal communications 648 - Fraud flag criteria used at the time 649 - Support system activity logs 650 - Royalty records before and after removals 651 - Third-party contractor involvement or playlist suppression 652 653 This clause is not solely based on online documentation or 654 community reports — it is also informed by the direct experience 655 of the bill’s author, Kenan Ali Erkan (Ali Prod), who was among the 656 artists purged during this 2021 takedown wave without notice or 657 due process. 658 659 The goal of this investigation is to determine whether artists were 660 wrongfully removed, defrauded of royalties, or suppressed through 661 collusion between DSPs and distributors — and to recommend 662 corrective actions or criminal referrals where applicable. 663 Section 5 — National Oversight for Music Economic Safety 664 (NOMES) 665 This section introduces NOMES, a federally established agency 666 responsible for auditing, investigating, and enforcing industry-wide 667 compliance in matters relating to artist royalties, fraudulent 668 takedowns, distributor negligence, metadata tampering, and 669 streaming fraud. 670 5.1 — NOMES Overview and Mission 671 NOMES (National Organization for Music Economic Safety) will 672 serve as a neutral body for protecting independent artists, 673 investigating fraud, and ensuring the fair and accurate distribution 674 of music royalties across platforms and distributors. It will operate 675 with government backing to audit, arbitrate, and intervene in cases 676 of suspected abuse or misconduct. 677 5.2 — Audit Powers and Reporting Timelines 678 NOMES will audit all U.S.-based and international music 679 distributors servicing American citizens, with mandatory reviews 680 every 3–6 months, aligned with royalty reporting periods. 681 Investigations will assess compliance with artist rights, proper 682 royalty payments, copyright integrity, and ecosystem transparency. 683 5.3 — Enforcement and Penalties 684 Distributors, labels, or DSPs found to have committed fraud, 685 withheld royalties, or manipulated copyrights without cause will be 686 subject to federal penalties, including seizure of relevant financial 687 data, reimbursement of artist damages, and referral to the DOJ or 688 IRS for criminal review. 689 5.4 — Clean Platform Standard (Anti-Bot Mandate) 690 DSPs must maintain a clean digital ecosystem. Failure to remove 691 known bots, phone farms, or fraudulent playlists will result in 692 NOMES-led investigations, and possibly FTC referral for deceptive 693 business practices. 694 5.5 — Distribution Takeover Clause 695 If a distributor or DSP is found unfit to manage artist royalties for 696 U.S. citizens, NOMES may assume oversight of their American- Page 26 of 42 697 facing catalog and facilitate temporary distribution through a 698 government-supervised portal or verified domestic partner. 699 5.6 — Copyright Integrity and Metadata Safety 700 NOMES will maintain secure logs of artist metadata (credits, splits, 701 copyright ownership) to prevent unauthorized tampering. Any 702 distributor that removes, edits, or misattributes this data without 703 consent will be held accountable. 704 5.7 — National and International Scope 705 NOMES protects American artists both domestically and abroad. It 706 will investigate cases where international distributors, labels, or 707 platforms extract value from U.S. audiences while violating artist 708 rights. All U.S.-based royalty flows, regardless of destination, fall 709 under NOMES jurisdiction. 710 5.8 — Payment Verification and Tax Compliance 711 To ensure accurate royalty tracking and federal taxation, NOMES 712 will verify royalty disbursements through social security numbers 713 and IRS channels. This ensures artists receive what they’re owed, 714 while strengthening national economic visibility. 715 5.9 — Emergency Oversight Trigger 716 In the event of mass artist takedowns, catalog disappearances, or 717 widespread fraud, NOMES may trigger emergency oversight 718 procedures to freeze further removals, secure artist data, and 719 initiate federal inquiries. Page 27 of 42 720 Section 6 — Platform Accountability & Transparency Standards 721 This section outlines the legal responsibilities of digital streaming 722 platforms (DSPs) and distributors to maintain fair, transparent, 723 and non-exploitative environments for artists. Platforms cannot 724 simultaneously profit from creators while punishing them for 725 systemic issues beyond their control. 726 6.1 — Clear Takedown Protocols 727 Platforms must clearly define their takedown processes in public 728 documentation. These processes must include: 729 • A notice to the artist before any removal. 730 • An explanation of the reason. 731 • A chance to appeal within a specified timeframe. 732 • Human review before a final decision. 733 Failure to provide these steps may result in a NOMES-led audit and 734 government intervention. 735 6.2 — Fraud Flag Disclosures 736 Artists must be informed of: 737 • The precise stream(s) and date(s) triggering a fraud flag. 738 • Any suspicious playlists or traffic sources. 739 • Whether the distributor or DSP initiated the fraud report. 740 This protects against false claims and gives artists the ability to 741 correct the record or appeal via NOMES. 742 6.3 — Anti-Gaslighting Clause 743 If an artist is removed for 'fraudulent streaming' yet receives no 744 proof and no platform or partner claims responsibility, then 745 NOMES will investigate for collusion or coordinated negligence. 746 Platforms may not obscure responsibility or deny knowledge if 747 they participate in data handling or revenue withholding. These 748 actions are subject to investigation. 749 6.4 — Platform Contradictions Must End 750 Platforms like Spotify promote themselves as empowering artists, 751 while issuing vague fraud takedowns and charging $10 per track 752 for 'artificial streaming'. 753 754 This bill directly challenges that contradiction: platforms cannot 755 profit from artists, offer playlist pitching, and sell ads to them while 756 removing their work without due process. 757 6.5 — National Economic Impact of Platform Negligence 758 Unlawful takedowns and account deletions: 759 • Undermine U.S. labor and innovation 760 • Remove taxable income from the national economy 761 • Create economic loss for independent creators and future 762 entrepreneurs 763 Congress must treat this issue as a matter of national economic 764 security. 765 Section 7 — Oversight, Enforcement & Artist Cooperatives 766 This section defines enforcement mechanisms, outlines 767 investigatory powers, and introduces collective protections for 768 artists through cooperatives. It prioritizes transparency, legal 769 oversight, and shared governance to ensure accountability across 770 all levels of the music distribution ecosystem. 771 7.1 — Federal Oversight & NOMES Authority 772 The National Oversight for Music Economic Standards (NOMES) 773 will have investigatory authority over: Page 29 of 42 774 • Distributors 775 • DSPs (Digital Service Providers) 776 • Music labels and platform intermediaries 777 778 Investigations will occur every 3–6 months and include: 779 • Audits of royalty payments 780 • Examination of metadata integrity and catalog ownership 781 • Review of artist account lockouts, shadowbans, or takedowns 782 NOMES shall be established within 12 months of the Act’s passage, 783 with operational intake and artist appeal systems active within 18 784 months. 785 7.2 — Enforcement Measures 786 If NOMES determines there has been: 787 • Fraud 788 • Royalty theft 789 • Copyright manipulation 790 • Unlawful shadowbanning 791 792 Then the distributor, label, or DSP may face: 793 • Federal charges 794 • Mandatory royalty reimbursement 795 • Public accountability, including apology statements and reversal 796 of punitive actions 797 7.3 — Economic Safeguards for American Consumption 798 NOMES may take temporary control over U.S.-based distributions if 799 providers are unable to comply with fair royalty practices. This 800 includes: 801 • Redirecting royalty payments to verified American artists Page 30 of 42 802 • Ensuring tax accountability 803 • Preventing international misallocation of U.S.-earned revenue 804 7.4 — Distribution Failures and Emergency Support 805 In cases of mass lockouts or platform negligence, NOMES will serve 806 as an emergency distribution hub or assign a verified domestic 807 partner under federal supervision to ensure artists retain access to 808 streaming platforms and royalties. 809 7.5 — Artist Cooperatives & Legal Standing 810 Creators may form registered artist cooperatives, including shared 811 legal teams, indie labels, or unions. 812 These cooperatives: 813 • May join the NOMES registry 814 • Have legal standing in appeals and investigations 815 • Can file class-action claims on behalf of members 816 7.6 — Executive-Level Oversight Inquiry 817 Given potential national economic harm, NOMES will suggest an 818 oversight inquiry into the leadership of: 819 • Major DSPs (e.g., Spotify) 820 • Prominent music distributors (e.g., DistroKid, Tunecore, Horus 821 Music) 822 • Leading music label conglomerates 823 824 If fraud or negligence is confirmed, referrals may be made to the 825 DOJ and IRS for appropriate legal action. 826 7.7 — Legal Aid Fund for Artists 828 NOMES shall establish and oversee a federally supported Legal Aid 829 Fund to provide independent artists with access to legal 830 representation in cases involving wrongful takedowns, royalty 831 theft, metadata tampering, or platform retaliation. This fund will 832 cover services including arbitration counsel, fraud appeal support, 833 contract review, and class action participation. The goal is to 834 ensure that artists are not silenced or bankrupted simply because 835 they cannot afford private legal defense. 836 Eligibility will be based on income thresholds, with priority given 837 to artists who are locked out of their accounts, facing repeated 838 fraud flags, or subject to mass catalog removals. The Legal Aid Fund 839 may be financed through a combination of public funding and civil 840 penalties collected from platforms and distributors found to have 841 violated this Act. Legal representation may be provided through a 842 network of vetted attorneys, nonprofit law centers, or government843 assigned counsel specializing in creative rights and digital labor 844 protections. 845 7.8 — Transparency & Oversight 846 847 NOMES shall publish an annual public report detailing the scope 848 and outcomes of its investigations. This shall include: the number 849 of fraud cases reviewed, takedowns reversed, royalty repayments 850 issued, class action activity supported, and repeat offenders 851 identified among DSPs or distributors. The report shall be made 852 accessible on a public government website and shared with 853 congressional oversight committees to ensure ongoing 854 accountability.