How Private Equity Is Rewriting the Economics of Songwriting
Not long ago, music catalogs were considered the quiet side of the music business, valuable but rarely headline material. However, in the past few years, blockbuster catalog sales by artists like Justin Bieber, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen, along with billion-dollar partnerships between major labels and private equity firms, have pushed song ownership into the center of the financial conversation. Songs are no longer framed only as creative works, but as durable, revenue assets. Streaming has extended the earning life of recordings, and large-scale ownership offers investors diversification beyond traditional equities.
For investors, the appeal is obvious, but for songwriters, the implications are much more complicated. Behind the headlines and figures is a quieter shift in who holds power over music’s future. As catalogs move into institutional hands, artists are increasingly asked, sometimes early in their careers, to trade long-term royalty participation and control for upfront certainty. The issue is no longer just what a catalog is worth, but what gets surrendered in the process. Once the future value of a song is sold, decisions about how it is licensed, contextualized, and monetized often move far from the people who created it.
To understand where that power shift begins, it helps to look at what actually changes hands in a catalog deal.
What’s Actually Being Sold When an Artist “Sells Their Catalog”
When an artist announces they’ve sold their catalog, the transaction is often misunderstood as a sale of “the music itself.” In reality, music ownership is fragmented across multiple intellectual property rights, each carrying different economic and creative consequences.
Every recorded song contains two primary intellectual property rights. The first is the musical composition, commonly referred to as publishing, which covers the underlying melody and lyrics. The second is the sound recording, known as the master, which applies to a specific recorded performance of that composition. These rights are legally distinct, generate revenue through different channels, and are often owned by different parties.
That distinction matters because different rights create different incentives. Publishing generates income across performance royalties, mechanical royalties, and synchronization licensing, while masters are primarily monetized through streaming, sales, and master-use licenses. Over the course of a career, these rights are frequently divided among multiple songwriters, producers, labels, and estates, often across dozens or hundreds of works. What investors acquire, then, is not just music but a complex web of income streams with varying degrees of control attached.
In many cases, artists do not own their masters at all, having signed them away early in their careers in exchange for advances and marketing support from record labels. Publishing, by contrast, is often retained, at least in part, by songwriters, who typically split ownership with a publisher under U.S. law. However, even then, publishing ownership is frequently divided among multiple writers, producers, and estates. By the time a songwriter is in a position to sell a catalog, they may control only portions of their publishing, and little, if any, of their recordings.
Some artists have attempted to regain leverage by exploiting the legal separation between publishing and master rights. The most well-known example of this is Taylor Swift, who re-recorded and re-released her earlier albums. Swift was able to redirect attention and revenue away from recordings she no longer owned because publishing and master rights are legally separate, allowing new versions to compete with older ones. While this is a path open to very few artists, it underscores a central reality of today’s catalog market: ownership structures determine not just who gets paid, but who gets to decide how music lives on.
The Costs of Consolidation
The financialization of music isn’t new. Publishing catalogs have been traded as assets for more than a century. What has changed is the pace and scale of consolidation, which has accelerated sharply over the past fifteen years. The recent wave of catalog deals has created the impression of a booming industry. Nine-figure sales dominate headlines, and rising valuations suggest a thriving market. But those deals reflect the success of a small number of artists and catalogs, not the financial reality facing most songwriters.
In practice, the benefits of consolidation flow to a narrow group of extremely popular catalogs and the firms that control them. A limited pool of songs generate a disproportionate share of revenue, while most working songwriters continue to earn modest streaming income and have little leverage in negotiations. Even so, the performance of top-tier catalogs is often cited in industry and policy discussions as evidence that the system works, an argument that can be used to defend royalty structures that leave many artists and songwriters behind.
An Arms Race for Ownership
That imbalance is reinforced by the competitive dynamics driving the market itself. As private equity interest intensified, traditional music companies adapted. Rather than stepping aside, major labels and publishers began partnering with financial firms, forming joint ventures and raising outside capital to compete directly for catalogs. For instance, in 2025, Warner Music Group and Bain Capital announced a joint venture targeting up to $1.2 billion in music catalog acquisitions. The result of these partnerships is an arms race: multinational labels, specialist funds, and investment vehicles all chasing the same finite pool of high-earning songs.
Competition has pushed prices to historic highs, and top-tier catalogs are now routinely selling for ten to twenty times their annual earnings. That dynamic is reflected in recent negotiations around marquee catalogs. For instance, the Financial Times reported in 2025 that Warner Music Group was in talks to acquire the recorded-masters catalog of Red Hot Chili Peppers for more than $300 million, with Billboard later reporting expectations closer to $350 million. While these inflated prices can benefit sellers in the short term, they also reinforce a market in which ownership concentrates within a relatively small ecosystem of powerful buyers.
Behind the press releases for catalogue sales, many of the deals remain opaque. Confidential terms, secondary sales, and sub-licensing arrangements can obscure how rights are ultimately controlled and monetized. Once a catalog enters the institutional marketplace, it may change hands multiple times, being resold, bundled, or leveraged as part of larger portfolios—often without the original creator’s knowledge or involvement.
Who Controls a Song After It’s Sold?
Much of the risk for songwriters and artists in today’s catalog market stems from a concept that rarely surfaces in deal announcements: moral rights. Broadly speaking, moral rights protect the personal connection between a creator and their work. They include the right of attribution, to be recognized as the author or performer, and the right of integrity, the ability to object to uses or alterations that distort the work or damage the creator’s reputation.
In many countries, moral rights function as a lasting safeguard. Under French copyright law, for example, droit moral is inalienable and perpetual. Even after a work is sold, creators retain the right to control attribution and object to uses they believe compromise the integrity of their work. In France, moral rights remain with the artist for life and can be enforced by heirs after death, reflecting a legal philosophy that treats creative works as an extension of the author’s personality, not just a commercial asset.
The United States takes a very different approach. While the U.S. recognizes moral rights in limited contexts, most notably for visual art under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), music is largely excluded. For songwriters and recording artists, copyright law is primarily concerned with economic rights: who can reproduce, distribute, and monetize a work. Once those rights are sold, creators generally have little legal ability to object to how their music is used, even if the use conflicts with their values or public image. Moral rights can often be waived by contract, and in practice, they rarely offer meaningful protection for musicians.
In the context of catalog consolidation, questions around moral rights matter. When ownership shifts to institutional buyers, decisions about licensing, branding, and context follow the logic of portfolio value, not artistic intent. A song may be placed in a political campaign, advertisement, or corporate partnership without the creator’s consent, and with few legal remedies available. As catalogs move further into institutional hands, the absence of strong moral rights protections in the U.S. quietly reshapes what creators can control long after the sale is complete.
Who Really Benefits?
Catalog consolidation offers a kind of clarity for artists in an increasingly precarious music economy: guaranteed money now in exchange for giving up control and influence. For many artists navigating the streaming-era income, that trade-off can feel practical, even necessary. But as ownership concentrates and more of music’s past is absorbed into institutional portfolios, the future becomes harder for creators to shape. Decisions about how songs are licensed, framed, and valued increasingly move away from the people who wrote them. The question is no longer whether music can generate value, it clearly can, but who gets to control that value, and who decides how music will live on.
Sources
Chen, Ann. “How Private Equity Is Shaping Modern Music Catalog Deals.” Loeb & Loeb LLP Insights, June 2025. https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/how-private-equity-is-shaping-modern-music-catalog-deals
Davies, Kaitlyn, Henderson Cole, and David Turner. “Understanding Two Decades of Music Catalog Purchases.” CNM Lab Short Wave, October 6, 2022. https://cnmlab.fr/en/short-wave/understanding-two-decades-of-music-catalog-purchases/.
Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba. “Taylor’s Swift (Taylor’s Version): What Her Re-recordings Teach Us About Copyright Law.” FLB Law. October 3, 2025. https://www.flblaw.com/taylors-version-explaining-taylor-swifts-re-recordings-under-the-copyright-law/
Loke, Ashley. “A Comparison of American and French Copyright Law.” New York PreLaw Land, June 25, 2021. https://ny.prelawland.com/post/654991661391282176/a-comparison-of-american-and-french-copyright-law.
“Moral Rights.” GoClip. Accessed February 9, 2026. https://goclip.org/en/music/music-creators-rights/moral-rights.
Schwartz, Drew. “Artists Can Make Millions Selling Their Catalogs to Private Equity. Should They?” Vice, January 15, 2021. https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-so-many-musicians-are-selling-their-catalogs-bob-dylan-neil-young-shakira-hipgnosis/
U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright and the Public Interest: Moral Rights. Accessed February 9, 2026. https://www.copyright.gov/policy/moralrights/.
Sophia, Deborah. “Warner Music, Bain Capital Launch $1.2 Billion Venture to Buy Music Catalogs.” Reuters, July 1, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/warner-music-bain-capital-launch-jv-invest-up-12-billion-music-catalogs-2025-07-01/.
About the Author
