Core Viewpoint - The ongoing "original singer dispute" in the music industry highlights the complexities surrounding the definition of "original" and the legal implications of music rights, suggesting a need for clearer contractual agreements to prevent future conflicts [1][2][3] Group 1: Definition and Importance of Original Singer - The concept of "original singer" is primarily a commercial one and may not hold significant importance for artists, as it does not directly relate to music copyright rights [2] - Many industry insiders find the dispute perplexing, viewing it as a result of fan involvement rather than a substantive issue [2] Group 2: Rights of Songwriters - Songwriters are considered the primary rights holders, as they can reclaim performance rights if they retain ownership of the song's copyright [2] - Any third party wishing to perform a song must obtain authorization from the songwriter and copyright holder, as stipulated by copyright law [2] Group 3: Contractual Clarity - The root of the original singer dispute lies in the lack of standardized contract terms among OST producers, leading to misunderstandings about who is considered the original singer [3] - To resolve such disputes, it is suggested that future contracts explicitly include clauses regarding the designation of the original singer, which could lead to clearer industry regulations [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent copyright dispute surrounding the song "Nian Lun," highlighting the complexities of music rights and the implications for the Chinese music industry, particularly in the context of original artists and their recognition [1][4][10]. Group 1: Background of the Dispute - "Nian Lun" is a song from the popular drama "Hua Qian Gu," which set viewership records in 2015, with an average rating of 2.69% [3]. - The song has been embroiled in a copyright controversy after a singer known as "Wang Zai Xiao Qiao" claimed that Zhang Bi Chen was the original singer, leading to a public dispute between fans [4][6]. - Zhang Bi Chen's studio announced that she would no longer perform "Nian Lun," while the song's original author, Wang Su Long, retracted the song's performance rights, making it effectively a "forbidden song" [1][6]. Group 2: Legal and Industry Implications - The dispute reveals issues within the music industry regarding the lack of clarity in copyright laws, particularly the absence of a legal definition for "original singer" [8][9]. - Wang Su Long holds complete copyright over "Nian Lun," which includes rights for reproduction, distribution, and performance, allowing him to authorize any performances of the song [8]. - The article emphasizes that the music industry needs clearer contractual agreements regarding authorization scope, duration, and exclusivity to prevent such disputes in the future [9]. Group 3: Broader Industry Issues - The controversy reflects a broader issue in the Chinese music industry, where the identities of songwriters are often overshadowed by the fame of performing artists [9][10]. - The rise of internet celebrities and their impact on music consumption has led to a situation where original creators are frequently overlooked, as seen with "Wang Zai Xiao Qiao," who gained significant popularity through cover songs without proper attribution [10][11]. - The article also notes that music platforms often mislabel original artists, contributing to confusion and disputes over song ownership [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The essence of the copyright dispute revolves around the inadequacy of licensing terms in the music industry, highlighted by the controversy surrounding the song "Nian Lun" and its original singer claims [1][9]. Group 1: Background of the Dispute - "Nian Lun" gained popularity as a theme song for the 2015 drama "Hua Qian Gu," which set a record for viewership in Chinese weekly dramas with an average rating of 2.69% [3]. - The song has been embroiled in a copyright dispute ten years after its release, triggered by a popular singer's claim regarding the original performer, leading to a public outcry and fan conflicts [5][6]. Group 2: Statements from Involved Parties - Zhang Bichen's studio claimed she holds the permanent singing rights to "Nian Lun," but announced she would no longer perform the song out of respect [1]. - The team of the song's author, Wang Sulong, announced the withdrawal of the song's usage authorization, effectively making it unavailable for public performance [1][6]. Group 3: Legal and Industry Insights - The lack of a legal definition for "original singer" in Chinese copyright law has contributed to the confusion, as the law recognizes only authors and performers [7][9]. - The dispute has highlighted the need for clearer contractual agreements regarding the scope, duration, and exclusivity of music rights [9]. Group 4: Industry Reactions and Implications - Industry experts noted that the controversy reflects broader issues within the Chinese pop music scene, including the lack of proper attribution for songwriters in the age of social media [10]. - The incident has led to significant changes in how music platforms label original performers, as seen with the removal of "original singer" tags from various songs following the dispute [10].

Core Viewpoint - The dispute over the original singer of the song "Year Ring" has escalated due to copyright issues, highlighting the complexities of music copyright protection in China, particularly the relationship between performers' rights and the rights of songwriters [2][39][40]. Group 1: Background of the Dispute - The controversy began when Wang Zai Xiao Qiao, a popular internet celebrity, announced a concert, leading to a resurgence of discussions about the original singer of "Year Ring," a song performed by Zhang Bichen and written by Wang Sulong [2][3][39]. - The song "Year Ring," which was part of the soundtrack for the drama "Flower Thousand Bones," has been a topic of debate for years, with Zhang Bichen traditionally recognized as the original singer due to her version being the first widely heard [7][11][39]. Group 2: Key Events and Reactions - On July 23, 2025, QQ Music removed Zhang Bichen's label as the original singer, leading to a public outcry and the trending topic of "Zhang Bichen's original singer status being canceled" [7][11][39]. - Wang Sulong's studio announced the decision to revoke the authorization for Zhang Bichen to perform the song, which intensified the dispute [12][39]. - Zhang Bichen's studio responded by asserting her status as the "only original singer" and provided evidence to support their claim [12][38][39]. Group 3: Legal and Industry Implications - The dispute reflects the lack of clear legal definitions regarding the term "original singer" in China's copyright law, leading to varying interpretations within the industry [40][41]. - The situation underscores the blurred lines between copyright ownership and performance rights, as both Wang Sulong and Zhang Bichen have valid claims based on their respective roles in the song's creation and performance [41][42]. - Legal experts suggest that Wang Sulong's decision to revoke authorization could pose a risk of breach of contract, depending on the terms of the original agreement [44][45].

Investment Rating - The investment rating for the company is "Outperform the Market" [4][48]. Core Insights - The company is a leading online music streaming platform in China, focusing on a young audience and enhancing its subscription business through an increase in paid user numbers [1][10]. - The competitive landscape is characterized by a duopoly between the company and Tencent Music, with the company holding approximately 27% market share [2][13]. - The company's revenue for 2024 is projected to be 79.5 billion CNY, with a year-on-year growth of 1%, primarily due to a decline in social entertainment services [3][18]. Financial Analysis - The company's core business segments are online music services and social entertainment services, with online music services accounting for 67% of total revenue in 2024 [3][18]. - Online music revenue is expected to reach 53.5 billion CNY in 2024, reflecting a year-on-year increase of 23% [3][18]. - The subscription revenue for 2024 is projected to be 44.6 billion CNY, up 22% year-on-year, driven by an increase in paid user numbers [3][19]. - The company’s gross margin for 2024 is estimated at 34%, an increase of 7 percentage points year-on-year, indicating improved cost management [4][34]. - Adjusted profit for 2024 is expected to be 1.7 billion CNY, representing a significant year-on-year increase of 108% [4][28]. Market Positioning - The company has a strong focus on community engagement and emotional connection with users, leveraging user-generated content and a unique review culture to enhance user retention [2][10]. - The company has been gradually regaining music copyrights since the cancellation of exclusive rights in 2021, which is expected to improve its content offerings [2][14]. Profitability Forecast - Revenue projections for 2025 to 2027 are 86.68 billion CNY, 96.76 billion CNY, and 108.10 billion CNY, respectively, with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of 9%, 12%, and 12% [9][40]. - Adjusted profits for the same period are forecasted to be 2.1 billion CNY, 2.5 billion CNY, and 3.0 billion CNY, with a CAGR of 21% [9][41]. Valuation - The target price for the company is set between 311 and 354 HKD, reflecting a potential upside of 30% to 48% from the current price [4][42]. - The company is compared favorably against international peers like Spotify and domestic competitor Tencent Music, with a projected PE ratio for 2025 of 29-33x [4][42].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by artists in the music industry regarding copyright ownership, highlighting the struggles of several musicians, including G.E.M., Wu Qingfeng, and Taylor Swift, who have fought to regain control over their music rights after signing contracts that relinquished their ownership to record labels [3][4][5]. Group 1: Artist Experiences - G.E.M. signed a contract at age 15 that transferred her music copyright and recording rights to her former label, resulting in her not receiving royalties for six years due to ongoing legal disputes [4][6]. - Wu Qingfeng faced a similar situation, where he lost the rights to his music after signing a contract with a music company, leading to a lengthy legal battle to reclaim his rights [8][9]. - Taylor Swift's experience involved her original label selling her first six albums' master recordings to a controversial figure, prompting her to re-record her albums to regain control and encourage fans to support her new versions [12][13]. Group 2: Industry Practices - The article highlights the problematic nature of contracts in the music industry, particularly for young artists who may not fully understand the implications of relinquishing their rights [18][20]. - It emphasizes the shift in the music industry's revenue model, where artists now have more avenues for exposure and income, making it crucial for them to negotiate better terms regarding their rights [20][21]. - The article suggests that the current copyright structure often disadvantages artists, as many are unaware of the long-term consequences of their contracts, leading to a need for greater awareness and negotiation power among musicians [19][21].

Core Viewpoint - G.E.M. (邓紫棋) released a re-recorded album titled "I AM GLORIA," which includes her representative works, amidst a long-standing copyright dispute with her former label, Hummingbird Music [1][5][6]. Group 1: Background of the Re-recorded Album - The re-recorded album is a response to a copyright statement issued by Hummingbird Music, which claimed ownership of over 100 songs released during G.E.M.'s contract with them [6][7]. - G.E.M. revealed that her first contract, signed at age 15, was a buyout agreement, resulting in her losing ownership of her works despite retaining the right to be credited as the author [7][8]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Challenges - G.E.M.'s legal team found a basis for re-recording under Article 42 of China's Copyright Law, allowing recording producers to use previously recorded music without the copyright owner's permission, provided they pay reasonable compensation [8][10]. - The re-recorded album allows G.E.M. to regain control over the distribution of her works' income, which had previously been a source of frustration due to the lack of royalties from her past works [10][12]. Group 3: Industry Context and Implications - The struggle for control over recording rights is a significant challenge in the music industry, where record labels typically retain ownership of the master recordings, making it difficult for artists to reclaim their rights [12][13]. - The situation reflects a broader trend in the music industry where artists are increasingly aware of their rights and are taking steps to regain control over their works, as seen with other artists like Taylor Swift [15][16]. Group 4: Artist Empowerment and Industry Evolution - G.E.M.'s actions symbolize a growing awareness among artists regarding their rights, emphasizing that music is not just a product but an extension of their identity and creative sovereignty [16][17]. - The industry is witnessing a shift where artists are challenging traditional copyright systems through re-recording, repurchasing, and independent releases, aiming to highlight the importance of creative ownership [16][17].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing copyright dispute between G.E.M. (邓紫棋) and Hummingbird Music highlights significant issues in the music industry regarding copyright ownership, royalty distribution, and trademark rights, prompting calls for reform in industry contracts and legal frameworks [1][2][4]. Group 1: Copyright Dispute Overview - G.E.M. has not received royalties for her old songs for over six years due to a problematic contract signed at age 15, which transferred rights to 103 original songs to Hummingbird Music [1]. - The dispute has drawn attention to the complexities of music copyright, including the separation of rights among songwriters, performers, and producers, and the exploitation of vague contract terms by companies [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Solutions - The key to resolving the dispute lies in G.E.M.'s membership in the Hong Kong Composers and Authors Society (CASH), which allows her to retain certain rights over her works despite Hummingbird's claims [2]. - The flexibility of China's Copyright Law enables G.E.M. to re-record her songs without Hummingbird's permission, as long as no prohibitive statements were made during the original release [3]. Group 3: Recommendations for Industry Reform - The dispute serves as a catalyst for restructuring industry contracts, emphasizing the need for clear rights delineation, detailed royalty distribution, and proactive protection of artists' names [4][5]. - Recommendations include mandatory rights lists in contracts, differentiated royalty structures based on usage scenarios, and a dual-track system for payment and dispute resolution to ensure transparency and accountability [5][6]. - Proposals for trademark rights include ensuring that artists retain ownership of their stage names, with strict penalties for companies that attempt to register these names without consent [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the competitive landscape of music streaming platforms in China, highlighting the differences in membership systems, music libraries, and additional features among QQ Music, NetEase Cloud Music, Apple Music, and Migu Music [1][2][26]. Membership Systems - QQ Music, NetEase Cloud Music, and Migu Music offer free membership tiers, allowing users to access a portion of the music library without payment, while Apple Music requires a paid subscription after a one-month free trial [2][3]. - QQ Music has multiple membership levels, including luxury green diamond and super membership, while NetEase Cloud Music offers several tiers, including black vinyl VIP and SVIP [2][3]. Music Library Size - QQ Music is noted for its extensive music library, covering a wide range of genres and eras, making it a top choice for users seeking variety [5][10]. - Apple Music, while lacking in the ability to purchase music directly in China, has a rich library due to its global partnerships and is particularly strong in classical music [10][11]. - NetEase Cloud Music excels in independent music, attracting many independent artists through its music creator program [13]. - Migu Music, while not as extensive in mainstream music, has a unique advantage with its comprehensive collection of Jay Chou's songs due to a long-standing partnership with China Mobile [14][16]. Additional Features - NetEase Cloud Music is recognized for its vibrant user community and engaging comment sections, which enhance user interaction [17][19]. - QQ Music has developed a diverse audio content ecosystem, including audiobooks and podcasts, through partnerships with external platforms [21][22]. - Apple Music lacks additional content features, focusing solely on music, while Migu Music offers limited features compared to its competitors [22][26]. Platform Compatibility - All four music apps are available on mobile and tablet platforms, but only QQ Music and Migu Music offer native apps for HarmonyOS 5 [23][24]. - QQ Music, NetEase Cloud Music, and Apple Music provide desktop applications, while Migu Music only has a web version due to copyright restrictions [24][25]. User Preferences - QQ Music is recommended for users who prioritize a large music library and additional audio content, while Apple Music is suitable for those who prefer a straightforward subscription model [26][28]. - NetEase Cloud Music is ideal for fans of independent music and those who enjoy community engagement through comments [28]. - Migu Music is suggested as a supplementary option for Jay Chou fans or China Mobile users with bundled membership benefits [28]. Industry Trends - The article notes a shift in music consumption habits, with short video platforms like Douyin (TikTok) emerging as significant competitors to traditional music apps, emphasizing the need for music apps to evolve beyond just music listening [29].

Group 1 - The emergence of AI-generated music has led to a surge of amateur musicians entering the music industry, with many creating songs using AI tools [2][3][19] - A notable AI song, "Seven Days Lover," created by programmer Yapie, gained significant popularity, leading to discussions about the potential of AI in music creation [3][6][15] - Despite the initial excitement, the AI music market faces challenges, including copyright issues and the quality of AI-generated songs being questioned by industry professionals [6][23][24] Group 2 - Critics argue that AI music lacks innovation and emotional depth, often resulting in repetitive and formulaic compositions [10][12][28] - The commercialization of AI music is complicated by legal uncertainties regarding copyright, as platforms are hesitant to sign contracts with AI-generated works [22][23] - The influx of AI-generated music has raised concerns about the overall decline in music quality and the potential impact on traditional musicians and their income [26][27][30] Group 3 - The music industry is witnessing a shift where AI tools are being used for low-cost production, potentially undermining the livelihoods of traditional musicians [25][26] - The phenomenon of "AI music" is seen as a reflection of a broader trend in the music market, where mediocre content is often favored over quality [14][18][30] - The debate continues over whether AI can truly replicate the emotional and artistic depth of human-created music, with many asserting that AI lacks the ability to understand and convey genuine artistic expression [31]