U.S. Copyright Office Opens Streaming Fraud Inquiry With Live Music in Focus
The U.S. Copyright Office has opened a public inquiry into music streaming fraud, seeking evidence on how artificial listening activity affects royalties, industry practices and the live music business.
In its October 7 announcement, the Office said it is gathering information about the prevalence of streaming fraud, efforts to combat it and potential voluntary, statutory or regulatory solutions. The inquiry follows a request from Representative Scott Fitzgerald and will help inform Congress’s understanding of the issue.
For concert promoters and venue operators, one part of the inquiry deserves particular attention: the Office explicitly asks how streaming fraud relates to venue selection, ticket sales and spending on food, beverages, merchandise and parking.
Why the Inquiry Reaches Into Live Music
Question five asks for data connecting streaming fraud to live performances, including room selection, ticket purchases and ancillary sales. That puts the reliability of digital audience information directly within the inquiry’s scope.
For a promoter, the practical concern is straightforward: an inflated audience signal can make demand appear stronger than it is. If that signal influences a booking decision, it could contribute to an oversized room, an unrealistic artist guarantee or a marketing budget built around listeners who are unlikely to purchase tickets.
Those are potential business consequences, rather than losses the Office has quantified. The inquiry is seeking evidence about these relationships; it does not establish how many concerts have been affected or assign a dollar value to lost ticket revenue.
Streaming popularity also does not translate directly into local ticket demand. A mismatch between listening figures and attendance is not, by itself, evidence of fraud. For booking decisions, streaming data is most useful when considered alongside verified ticket history, audience geography, comparable shows and the strength of an artist’s local following.
How Music Streaming Fraud Works
The Office’s Notice of Inquiry describes several methods used to inflate listening figures, including bot farms, click farms, playlist stuffing and account hijacking. It also addresses fraudulent ownership claims involving other people’s recordings or manipulated versions of existing works.
These practices can divert money from legitimate listening activity. Under a pro-rata royalty model, a service allocates royalties according to each recording’s share of qualifying streams. Artificial plays can increase a fraudulent recording’s share of that pool, reducing the amount available to other rights holders.
The consequences can extend beyond payments. The notice discusses distorted playlist placement, recommendation systems and audience data used to make business decisions, including when and where an artist should tour.
AI-Generated Music Is Part of the Inquiry
The Office is also requesting information about the relationship between streaming fraud, AI-generated music and royalties for musical works and sound recordings. The issue involves both the content entering streaming services and the listening activity used to generate payments.
AI-generated content and fraudulent streaming are distinct questions. The presence of AI in a recording does not, on its own, establish that its streams are artificial. Conversely, manipulated listening activity can involve recordings regardless of how they were produced.
Related platform-level measures were explored in PrimeEV’s coverage of Qobuz’s AI labeling and streaming-fraud controls. The federal inquiry takes a broader approach, seeking information across the industry about the problem’s scale and the effectiveness of different responses.
Platforms, Distributors and Royalty Safeguards
The inquiry asks whether industry policies or practices inadvertently contribute to fraud and how effectively stakeholders prevent or detect it. Areas under examination include customer and content verification, trusted-distributor policies, royalty clawbacks, fines and content removal.
The Office also seeks input on information sharing, metadata standards and a possible shared database of known streaming fraud. Its background discussion identifies a recurring challenge: operators removed by one distributor may continue their activity through another.
Potential responses under consideration range from voluntary industry practices to legislative or regulatory changes. The notice also asks about criminal enforcement. At this stage, the Office is gathering evidence and recommendations; the announcement does not impose new requirements on artists, platforms or distributors.
Public Comments Are Due in November
Initial written comments are due by November 23, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Reply comments are due by December 21, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Submission instructions and supporting materials are available on the Copyright Office’s Music Streaming Fraud policy page.
For the live music sector, the comment process creates an opportunity to explain how audience data informs real booking decisions. Documented examples of its use in venue selection, ticket forecasting and event planning could help establish where streaming manipulation creates measurable harm—and where the evidence remains incomplete.
Sources:
