How Evolving Music Technology Changed Royalty Structures
Nothing ages faster than a music contract—except perhaps a rock band itself. When The Police formed in 1977, the music business looked very different than it does today. In their early years, the band navigated multiple shifts in music consumption: from LPs and eight-tracks, through cassettes and Sony’s Walkman, into the MTV era, and finally to CDs, which Dire Straits famously showcased in their groundbreaking 1985 album, Brothers in Arms.
Crucially, these changes didn’t occur overnight. The Police didn’t wake up suddenly in a CD-dominated landscape or find themselves abruptly plunged into the Spotify universe. Instead, they watched and adapted—sometimes reluctantly—as new technologies and platforms incrementally transformed how artists earned their money, shifting the financial ground beneath their feet.
The Police’s Royalty Lawsuit: Copeland and Summers vs. Sting
Last week, Stewart Copeland and Andy Summers, two-thirds of the iconic trio, filed a lawsuit against the band’s lead singer, Sting (Gordon Sumner). Copeland and Summers claimed that Sting shortchanged them on royalties—specifically regarding arranger’s fees linked to the band's extensive and highly lucrative catalog—alleging damages exceeding $2 million.
Sting countered quickly and forcefully. He insisted the accounting was accurate and asserted that a 2016 agreement between the band members had fully resolved these financial matters. He went even further, arguing, perhaps self-servingly, that a careful reading of their agreement might show he actually paid more than was strictly required.
At the Core: Royalty Rights and Contract Clarity in Long-Term Partnerships
This conflict highlights a critical lesson: know your contract. More importantly, understand exactly how and why everyone involved in a partnership—musical or otherwise—is paid. The crux of Copeland and Summers’ complaint seems to hinge on whether the original agreements anticipated evolving delivery methods and new technology-driven revenue streams. Did their contract specifically account for royalties arising from emerging platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, or whatever comes next—perhaps even music streamed directly into human consciousness via implanted chips?
If the contract did not clearly outline how royalties would adapt to new forms of media consumption, it leaves significant room for disputes, misunderstandings, and lost revenue. These questions become particularly important in long-term partnerships, where business conditions and technologies invariably evolve.
Legal Oversight and the Importance of Future-Proof Agreements
It is tempting to blame evolving technology for the confusion and conflict. After all, who could foresee streaming platforms like Spotify, where The Police’s hits enjoy massive popularity—Every Breath You Take alone has about 2.89 billion streams, Roxanne approximately 924 million, and Message in a Bottle around 629 million plays?
However, the real responsibility lies not with technology, but with the attorneys and advisors tasked with drafting and reviewing contracts. These professionals must proactively anticipate changes in technology and consumer habits. It is their responsibility to ensure royalty agreements clearly reflect the reality of shifting revenue streams and market practices.
When you're in any type of partnership, clear contractual language and informed legal advice are non-negotiable. Whether you're dealing with music royalties, intellectual property, or business ventures, attorneys must explicitly define payment structures and update provisions regularly to reflect new commercial realities.
Key Legal Takeaways for Artists and Business Partners
Here are critical takeaways for artists, business partners, and entrepreneurs alike:
- Anticipate technological changes: Ensure contracts include language adaptable to future innovations and delivery methods.
- Regularly review and update contracts: Do not assume that older agreements automatically apply to new formats or platforms.
- Clearly define royalty and payment structures: Ambiguity breeds conflict; explicit terms provide clarity and protection for all parties involved.
- Employ skilled and proactive legal counsel: Choose attorneys who understand industry dynamics and can anticipate future market conditions to avoid costly disputes.
The Bottom Line: Legal Foresight Protects Creative and Financial Relationships
Ultimately, Sting, Copeland, and Summers’ dispute isn't just about royalties or financial details; it's about understanding and safeguarding the integrity of partnership agreements. Without clear, forward-thinking contracts and experienced counsel, even the most successful collaborations can end in costly, public battles.
The case of The Police is a vivid reminder: the key to protecting your intellectual property and financial future lies in proactive legal planning and precise contract management—because nobody likes standing on stage (or in court) explaining why they're still waiting for money they're owed.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Publishing covers the underlying song (lyrics/melody) and pays songwriters/publishers; master royalties pay the owner of the sound recording (often the label/artist). Many uses require clearing—and paying—both rights.
- Not always. Legacy agreements may be silent or ambiguous on digital exploitation. Add explicit language for “now known or hereafter devised” formats and specify rate bases, audit rights, and reporting for streaming and future media.
- Best practice is to audit regularly within the contract’s audit window (e.g., annually or bi-annually) and preserve records. Include interest on late payments, access to source data, and tolling provisions if statements are delayed.
- To prevent royalty disputes, contracts should define royalty types (gross vs. net), platform-specific rates, and audit rights. Including MFN clauses, dispute resolution procedures, and reopener terms tied to tech changes helps ensure fairness and adaptability.
- Yes. Time limits vary by jurisdiction and claim type. Some contracts shorten or toll limitations; discovery rules may delay accrual until underpayment is reasonably knowable. Prompt review and legal advice help preserve claims.
Secure Your Royalty Rights with Experienced Counsel
Royalty accounting, legacy agreements, and new platforms create blind spots that cost creators real money. If your contracts predate streaming, or your statements don’t add up, engage entertainment and IP counsel to audit, renegotiate, and future-proof your agreements. Proactive legal strategy protects revenue, credit, and control over your catalog. Contact us today.