Three Ways a Streaming Upload Fee Could Actually Work

Here are some ideas to establish circular economic principles in streaming, similar to what's happening in live music

NOTE: Hi. I hope all of you are safe, well and discovering some great new music. I appreciate that it’s been a little while since I’ve written here. I will have some BIG news to share soon, explaining why, and I intend to write more (as there’s a lot going on), but until then, I’m lucky to collaborate with the brilliant Chris Dalla Riva (you should all buy his book - linked below) on this one. It’s meant to stir debate, so curious what you think - warmly, Shain

---

Earlier this year, in an article on Forbes, I proposed a small fee per track uploaded to streaming platforms to accelerate grassroots investment in the music ecosystem. The response was significant—from artists, distributors, policymakers, and fans—some in support and others questioning how it could work or the motives behind it. As such, I’ve decided to bring in my friend, Chris Dalla Riva, and we have decided to dig a little deeper into the idea and outline a few ways this could work, and why this, much like the voluntary levy now applied to some concerts over 5000 capacity in the UK, could be worth implementing. The basis for this is a belief in circular economic frameworks. We’re not alone. This is how it works in aviation, travel, and other industries, and there is precedent in live music. So, let’s get to it.

First, it is important to state that most agreed on the diagnosis, regardless of the treatment. It is estimated that more than 100,000 tracks are uploaded to streaming services every day, and many of them, upwards of 40% according to Deezer on certain days, are low-quality, fraudulent, or AI-generated content designed to game algorithms rather than reach real listeners. DSPs have an incentive to maximize AI, because if they don’t have to pay rightsholders, they can keep $1 of every $1 made, rather than pay out .70c. At the same time, the sheer volume dilutes royalty pools, strains platform infrastructure, which increases costs, and makes discovery harder.

However, how this could work is up for debate, and there is no simple answer. Who pays, how much, and where the money goes is not something all of us will agree on. Together, from different perspectives (I work in public policy and Chris on an independent platform), we present, without prejudice, three distinct models, each with different implications for artists, platforms, and the broader music ecosystem. None is mutually exclusive. We welcome debate on all three. We are not tied to anything, nor advocating anything. We just want to increase discussion.

Model 1: A Flat Per-Upload Fee

The simplest approach is a universal, flat fee applied to every track at the point of upload—say, between $0.01 and $0.10 per track. This could be collected by distributors or by platforms that accept direct uploads, and then transferred to a non-profit, independent entity that will regrant the income based on criteria set by an advisory board composed of representatives from across the ecosystem. The US has already found success with independent bodies like the MLC and SoundExchange.

At even $0.05 per track and 100,000 daily uploads, the math is straightforward: roughly $5,000 per day, or approximately $1.8 million per year globally. But this would need investment in a system to track such uploads and, importantly, political agreement that this is a levy worth charging and that there is a serious, dedicated approach to ensuring what is collected is equitably redistributed. There are many foundations and trade bodies that already do this, such as tourism boards that redistribute hotel tax levies, so models exist that could be adapted to create a Streaming Levy Distribution Body.

The risk, of course, is that a flat fee disproportionately burdens independent artists uploading a handful of tracks per year. A singer-songwriter releasing three singles pays the same rate as a content farm uploading thousands of posts. Any flat-fee model would need exemptions or credits for low-volume uploaders to remain equitable. These exceptions could be set by this ‘granting body’ and enshrined in their charter.

Photo by Austin Chan on Unsplash

Model 2: A Tiered, Volume-Based Fee

This would be a more nuanced approach that would scale the fee based on upload volume. Under this model, the first batch of uploads—say, the first 500 tracks per 90 days—would be free. Beyond that threshold, the per-track fee increases progressively. The more you upload, the more you pay.

This directly targets the entities most responsible for flooding the system. There is an argument that a relatively small number of accounts are responsible for a disproportionate share of uploads. These are often operations that upload thousands of tracks monthly—ambient loops, white noise variations, AI-generated compositions, and fraud—specifically designed to accumulate micro-royalties at scale. A tiered model raises the cost precisely where the problem is concentrated, while leaving the average working musician untouched. Here’s a debatable scale, per 90 days (thinking this is a realistic timeframe).

- 0 to 500 tracks – free

- 500 to 5000 tracks – 0.5c

- 5000 to 20,000 tracks – 0.7c

- Above 20,000 tracks per year – 0.10c

This approach also creates a natural incentive for quality over quantity. If uploading your 501st track in a 3-month period costs materially more than your 500th, the economic logic of mass-upload strategies weakens. It could also reduce the amount uploaded, which has environmental implications. It is the same idea that has reduced the amount of plastic bags on British beaches by 80%. A 0.5c charge changes behaviours, because any friction is still friction. Paired with existing platform efforts—Spotify, for instance, removed over 75 million tracks flagged as spam or fraud in the past twelve months—a tiered fee adds a preventive layer rather than relying solely on reactive enforcement, which might also persuade other changes, such as reversing a decision to restrict royalties to artists who do not receive 1000 streams per month.

Model 3: A Platform-Side Levy

The third model shifts the fee entirely away from artists and distributors. Instead, DSPs would absorb a small per-track levy from their operating budgets, with the proceeds directed to an independently managed fund.

This is most similar to a £1 levy on concert tickets, which now supports grassroots music venues through the Music Venue Trust. France has operated a similar structure for decades, channeling a portion of ticketing revenue into cultural development. We believe a modest increase of 0.10c per premium account and a modest levy on advertising for free accounts to brands could generate tens of millions of dollars to invest in human-made grassroots music-making, education, and other needs.

This would require an ombudsman-type organization that could be convened by DSPs, record labels, and other stakeholders. A percentage, for example, could be earmarked for investing in emerging markets, where a stream could be worth 1000 times less than it would be in an established market. Crucially, this model removes any barrier to entry for creators. The cost is absorbed by platforms and customers (yes, that is all of us), but we should not only be paying for the music we love now; we should also be investing to create more music we love in the future.

If this is adopted, we recommend an additional levy on all accounts that upload more than 5,000 tracks per month to address the flooding of the zone.

Photo by Sebbi Strauch on Unsplash

What Comes Next

These three models are not competing proposals—they’re starting points for a conversation we believe the industry, much like the UK’s live sector, urgently needs to have. A tiered fee could operate alongside a platform levy. A flat fee could apply only to specific distribution channels. Hybrid approaches are not only possible but likely necessary. We know a one-size-fits-all approach is naïve. We also know there are experts in this space whose knowledge outweighs ours. We just want to accelerate the debate. We welcome their input.

What matters most is that we move past the assumption that unlimited, zero-, or minimal-cost uploading is a permanent feature of the streaming landscape. Every track uploaded consumes energy, storage, and bandwidth, and further accelerates the climate emergency. Every fraudulent stream diverts money from human beings. Every algorithmic manipulation erodes listener trust. Every fraudulent upload is a crime, plain and simple. The current system externalises these costs. An upload fee—in whatever form—begins to internalise them.

The streaming economy has matured. It’s time for its upload infrastructure to mature with it.

Let us know what you think.

Shain & Chris

—

Shain Shapiro is the founder and chairman of Sound Diplomacy and the founder and executive director of the Center for Music Ecosystems. He is the author of This Must Be The Place: How Music Can Make Your City Better and the newsletter, Making Places Better

Chris Dalla Riva is a Senior Product Manager at Audiomack, the author of Uncharted Territory: What Numbers Tell Us about the Biggest Hit Songs and Ourselves, and the creator of the newsletter Can’t Get Much Higher.

We want to thank Brodie Conley and Joel Gouveia for their feedback on this post.