Chapter 2: Looking at the Data

When examining the landscape of the global music industry, it’s impossible to ignore the centralization that has occurred due to mergers between major publishing houses, such as EMI and Sony Music Publishers. These mergers have consolidated market power and created an environment where U.S. independent artists are thriving through self-publishing, while artists in other countries—such as Australia, Canada, and many emerging economies—are facing additional constraints.

Data: APRA’s Revenue and Distribution

APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association) collects approximately AUD $19.23 per capita, resulting in an estimated AUD $476 million annually. Despite this, only a small percentage of these funds reach smaller, independent creators. According to APRA’s reports, 90% of royalties are typically paid to just 10% of its members, suggesting that the system disproportionately benefits major corporations and top-performing artists [source].

In comparison, BMI and ASCAP in the U.S. operate under a non-exclusive input agreement model, which allows artists to have more control over their rights. This more decentralized model results in a more equitable distribution of royalties. BMI, for instance, generated USD $1.4 billion in revenue in 2023, with a significant portion reaching smaller creators compared to APRA’s distribution model [source].

Disparities in Music Exports

Looking at music export data reveals further disparities. In 2023, the U.S. music industry generated USD $17.1 billion, with a large portion coming from global music sales. Meanwhile, Australia’s music export revenue amounted to only AUD $195 million, or approximately AUD $7.50 per capita. This stark contrast highlights the challenges faced by Australian artists in accessing international markets, especially compared to their U.S. counterparts [source].

The Role of SAG-AFTRA and U.S. Content Dominance on Australian Artists

The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) primarily represents U.S.-based performers, including vocalists and musicians, in union-regulated productions. Through Global Rule One, SAG-AFTRA requires its members to work exclusively under union contracts worldwide, which effectively prioritizes U.S.-based talent for roles in Hollywood and other union-affiliated productions [SAG-AFTRA: Global Rule One].

For Australian artists, particularly those represented by APRA, access to these lucrative U.S.-based content markets is challenging. Unlike ASCAP or BMI’s non-exclusive systems in the U.S., which empower artists to negotiate direct licenses and pursue international opportunities independently, APRA’s centralized licensing model restricts Australian artists’ ability to access these projects. As a result, Australian talent often misses out on participating in U.S.-based productions that are SAG-AFTRA affiliated, including music roles in film, television, and streaming content.

The dominance of U.S. content in Australia further underscores this challenge. In 2023, U.S. films made up 86% of Australia’s box office revenue, and American streaming platforms like Netflix have a significant presence in Australian households, with approximately 65% penetration [Screen Australia], [Statista]. This pervasive American media presence means that Australians are primarily consuming U.S.-produced content, but Australian artists, under APRA’s exclusive model, find it difficult to participate in these projects.

The ABC’s Role and the Centralization of Australian Culture

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) plays an essential role in Australian culture, providing news, entertainment, and educational content. With an annual budget of approximately AUD $1 billion, the ABC costs each Australian roughly AUD $40 per capita. Despite being a critical public broadcaster, it has experienced funding cuts, leading to a 40% reduction in its workforce since 1989. The rising costs of producing content—30% for general content and 90% for children’s TV—have placed further financial pressure on the organization [source].

Both the ABC and APRA operate within centralized structures, limiting opportunities for decentralized, grassroots innovation. Just as the ABC focuses on nationalized programming, often influenced by government priorities, APRA’s structure favors the

APRA Chapter 1: A Call for Equitable Reform

As Lawrence Lessig highlights:

"When creativity is on the edge, the real innovation comes from the places where there is less control."

The current model of the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) runs counter to this principle, operating under the guise of a non-profit organization while effectively functioning like a corporation, centralizing control and limiting opportunities for smaller creators.

APRA's primary objective is to maximize royalties for its largest stakeholders—primarily large publishers and major artists. This drive for maximizing returns mirrors the operations of insurance companies, where venues and businesses pay royalties like premiums to legally provide music to the public. However, most of these royalties flow disproportionately to major corporate entities rather than smaller, independent artists. Given that APRA's revenue per capita is only AUD $19.23, its status as a non-profit organization is misleading, as it functions primarily to serve corporate interests, rather than fostering a fair, decentralized creative marketplace [source].

The Corporate Reality and the NRMA Example

Given APRA's corporate drive, there is a strong argument that it should be restructured as a for-profit corporation, in a similar manner to how the NRMA transitioned from a non-profit to a privatized entity. The NRMA issued shares to its members as it transformed, allowing participants to own a portion of the organization based on their contributions. A similar model would allow APRA members—artists and smaller creators—to own stakes in the organization and profit equitably from its revenue generation. This restructuring would align with APRA’s true operational behavior and ensure fairer distribution of royalties.

If APRA does not reform, it will block the formation of new unions or rights organizations, based on ethical principles and self-publishing, which are becoming increasingly important in the modern, decentralized creative economy.

As Lawrence Lessig further points out, publishers have largely abandoned the search for new artists:

"The publishers aren’t seeking out talent in the way they once did; they are simply benefiting from the existing catalogues, relying on historical content rather than investing in new voices."

This shift means that organizations like APRA are failing to serve smaller artists, and as a result, fewer opportunities exist for independent creators to break through. The current model, which centralizes control, limits the potential for smaller artists to innovate and compete globally [source].

A Call for Ethical Restructuring

Ultimately, if APRA is to continue as a non-profit, it must introduce government oversight to ensure it aligns with the public interest and the broader Australian music ecosystem. Without reform, APRA’s corporate model will perpetuate a cycle that favors large publishers over the emerging creators it purports to support. Privatization, or at least introducing market-based solutions, is essential to creating a more decentralized and fair music industry in Australia, where independent artists can thrive without being stifled by corporate control [source].

APRA: The Gatekeeper and the Burden of Red Tape

In Australia, APRA stands as the sole gatekeeper between creators and the public, mandating payments wherever music is played—effectively making music as essential, and costly, as hot water. Through its exclusive control, APRA organizes a complex web of red tape that prioritizes large publishers and major artists, sidelining smaller, independent creators. This system lacks both government oversight and competitive fairness, functioning outside the bounds of a truly open marketplace.

With no regulatory counterbalance, APRA’s practices operate in a closed loop that benefits established industry giants while restricting opportunities for emerging talents. Small venues, local businesses, and independent creators all bear the brunt of this system, forced to navigate APRA's bureaucratic barriers, which increase costs and stifle creative diversity. Despite its non-profit status, APRA’s operational model skews towards maximizing returns for its largest stakeholders rather than fostering a thriving, diverse music ecosystem.

Centralization, Pay-for-Play, and the Erosion of Creative Freedom

In the golden age of publishing, laws prohibited pay-for-play schemes, ensuring that radio airwaves remained a fair and accessible platform for genuine talent. Today, however, streaming services like Spotify frequently insert content from unfamiliar artists into personalized playlists, overriding listeners' choices in favor of promoting brands—often based on paid placements. This modern pay-for-play practice is less about showcasing artistic merit and more about amplifying those with the largest budgets, pushing creativity to the sidelines. Former platforms like Last.fm operated on more democratic principles but faded as hyper-commercialized models took over. Now, artists are often forced to "spam" the public just to be heard, reducing art to a numbers game rather than a celebration of originality.

This shift towards hyper-capitalism extends beyond music. In film, placement deals dictate casting decisions and narratives. During the pandemic, I joined a Clubhouse conversation where filmmakers shared that securing funding often required casting specific individuals with industry connections or influence. Creativity took a backseat as films became vehicles for strategic placements—yet another example of how monetary influence shapes what the public consumes, rather than artistic vision.

Platforms like Netflix and YouTube further entrench this centralized, profit-driven model. YouTube, for instance, claims to offer diverse content but primarily operates through algorithms that amplify U.S.-based voices and trends. Users searching for alternative viewpoints or local perspectives are often met with content filtered through a centralized, U.S.-centric lens. For instance, recent U.S. elections dominated YouTube feeds globally, overshadowing local issues that directly impact communities outside the U.S. The result is a disconnect: global audiences are drawn into narratives and events they have little influence over, while local perspectives struggle to gain traction.

These centralized systems—from Spotify and Netflix to YouTube—have co-opted the creative marketplace, creating a union for corporations where visibility is dictated by monetary influence rather than artistic or local relevance. To reclaim a fair, democratic creative ecosystem, there must be a shift towards decentralized platforms that honor the diversity of voices and the integrity of creative expression. Without such change, Australia and other regions will remain satellites of global corporations, dependent on external digital giants that prioritize profits over the true potential of art.