Record label revenues reached $9.5 billion, while revenues for US music publishers were… Recently, the US Copyright Office published a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register, seeking public comments on music piracy that threatens billions of dollars in domestic digital streaming revenues. The Office issued the NOI in response to a request from US Representative Scott Fitzgerald (Republican, Wisconsin) for an inquiry into the prevalence of streaming fraud in the music industry. The congressman also expressed concerns about the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the music industry.

Methods Used by Bad Actors to Artificially Inflate Streaming Figures Include Bot Account Farms and Playlist Stuffing

According to the Digital Media Association’s (DiMA) 2025 Annual Report, digital streaming accounts for approximately 70% of global music sales. According to global revenue figures released in 2026 by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), sound recording copyright owners received $22 billion in global revenues, while musical work copyright owners received $10 billion. In the United States, recording industry revenues reached $7.3 billion last year.

Music piracy undermines the economic benefits of authorized, licensed digital streaming, reducing the royalties collected by collective management organizations (CMOs) and performing rights organizations (PROs), and consequently affecting royalty payments to rights holders. The US Copyright Office’s NOI highlights various methods used by bad actors to fraudulently inflate stream counts and thereby divert royalties from legitimately streamed works, including bot farms, click farms, playlist stuffing, account hijacking and copyright fraud. Copyright fraud includes fraudulently claiming ownership of another person’s original or altered tracks through so-called “straight copying” and “ghost track” practices.

The Copyright Office’s NOI identifies several harms caused by music piracy, including damage to business relationships resulting from inaccurate payments and the distortion of data-driven decisions about live touring. The NOI also refers to enforcement actions against piracy, including the Michael Smith case handled by Jamie McDonald, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The North Carolina man was sentenced to 18 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He had used an automated bot scheme to inflate royalty revenues from musical recordings he claimed to own. Organizations including the RIAA welcomed the sentence, stating: “Streaming fraud harms creators and deceives music fans. We commend the court for recognizing the serious nature of this unlawful conduct. These illicit proceeds should have belonged to real musicians, songwriters and their label partners.”

To help Congress clarify the relevant issues, the Copyright Office included a series of questions in the NOI seeking information from the public about music piracy and streaming fraud. Some of these questions are as follows:

1. How is streaming fraud carried out? What data are currently available on the prevalence of different fraud models, such as bot farms, click farms, playlist manipulation and fraudulent marketing companies?

2. What data are currently available to demonstrate the relationship between streaming fraud and both “the impact of AI-generated music” and “licensing and distribution … royalties” associated with the performance and reproduction of musical works and sound recordings? What data are available?

3. What data are currently available to show the relationship between streaming fraud and various aspects of live music performances, including venue selection, ticket sales or “ancillary sales, such as food and beverages, merchandise and parking”?

4. What potential voluntary, statutory or regulatory solutions are available to address streaming fraud?

5. How could criminal enforcement better address streaming fraud?

Citing the Smith case heard by the federal court for the Southern District of New York, in which Smith illegally obtained approximately $10 million in royalties through streaming fraud, Fitzgerald asked the Copyright Office to examine the prevalence of streaming fraud on digital platforms and its impact on the music industry as a whole.

The NOI Does Not Mention the Close Connection Between Generative AI Streaming and Criminal Activity

Interestingly, the Copyright Office’s NOI barely revisits most of the concerns about generative AI raised in Representative Fitzgerald’s May letter to the agency. Fitzgerald acknowledged that there is nothing inherently wrong with using generative AI as a tool for music creation. However, he also noted that AI-generated music places additional competitive pressure on musicians. He cited a report from streaming platform Deezer showing that 44% of the music uploaded to the platform each day was AI-generated. Streams of such AI-generated music are often linked to criminal activity, such as the AI-generated music and automated bots used by Smith in the New York case.