Core Viewpoint - NetEase Cloud Music has filed a lawsuit against South Korea's SM Entertainment for alleged abuse of market dominance, with the court hearing scheduled for August 6 in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province [1]. Group 1: Legal Actions - The lawsuit involves Hangzhou LeDu Technology Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou NetEase Cloud Music Technology Co., Ltd. against SM Entertainment Co., L*, and Kasmong (Shanghai) Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. [1]. - The case is set to be heard in the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court [1]. Group 2: Historical Context - NetEase Cloud Music announced on January 24 that it might have to remove all songs from SM Entertainment due to the copyright holder's unilateral decision not to renew the contract [4]. - The collaboration between NetEase Cloud Music and SM Entertainment began in 2018, but issues arose in 2019 when SM Entertainment signed a strategic partnership with Tencent Music Entertainment Group, leading to the removal of SM songs from NetEase's platform [4]. Group 3: Recent Developments - In 2021, the National Market Regulation Administration issued a "declaration" to stop exclusive copyrights, allowing NetEase Cloud Music to re-establish its partnership with SM Entertainment in June 2022, regaining full music copyright [5]. - The CEO of NetEase, Ding Lei, referred to this signing as a "return" of SM Entertainment's copyrights to the platform [5]. Group 4: Financial Performance - In 2024, NetEase Cloud Music's online music service revenue reached 5.35 billion yuan, a 23.1% increase from 4.35 billion yuan in the previous year, driven by a growing membership base [6]. - Membership subscription revenue amounted to 4.46 billion yuan, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 22.2%, while content service costs decreased from 4.6 billion yuan in 2023 to 4 billion yuan in 2024 [6]. - In 2024, NetEase Cloud Music signed copyright agreements with major Korean music companies, including JYP Entertainment, Kakao Entertainment, and CJ Entertainment, as well as with prominent Chinese musician Li Jian [6].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between NetEase Cloud Music and South Korea's SM Entertainment has escalated, with a court hearing scheduled for August 6, 2023, regarding allegations of market dominance abuse [1]. Group 1: Legal Dispute - NetEase Cloud Music and its subsidiary have filed a lawsuit against SM Entertainment and its affiliates, with the case set to be heard in Hangzhou [1]. - The lawsuit follows a series of complications in the partnership between NetEase Cloud Music and SM Entertainment, which began in 2018 [6][8]. Group 2: Historical Context of Partnership - The collaboration between NetEase Cloud Music and SM Entertainment started in 2018, but faced challenges when SM Entertainment signed a strategic deal with Tencent Music in 2019, leading to the removal of SM's songs from NetEase's platform [8]. - In 2021, regulatory changes allowed for the cessation of exclusive copyright agreements, leading to a renewed partnership in 2022 where NetEase regained full music rights from SM Entertainment [8][9]. Group 3: Financial Performance - For the year 2024, NetEase Cloud Music reported online music service revenue of 5.35 billion yuan, a 23.1% increase from 4.35 billion yuan in the previous year, driven by a growing subscriber base [9]. - Subscription revenue reached 4.46 billion yuan, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 22.2%, while content service costs decreased from 4.6 billion yuan in 2023 to 4 billion yuan in 2024 [9].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing copyright dispute surrounding the song "Year Ring" highlights the complexities and challenges in the music industry's copyright system, particularly in the context of multiple versions and interpretations of songs [1][19][20] Group 1: Background of the Dispute - The controversy began when online singer "Wang Zai Xiao Qiao" claimed that the original singer of "Year Ring" is only Zhang Bichen, leading to a "dual original singer" dispute between the song's creator Wang Sulong and performer Zhang Bichen [3][5] - The year 2015 marked a pivotal moment in China's online music copyright landscape, with the National Copyright Administration issuing a notice to halt unauthorized music distribution, thus ending the "wild west" era of online music [3][4] Group 2: Industry Response - Major music streaming platforms, such as QQ Music and NetEase Cloud, exhibited unusual behavior by altering the "original singer" labels for the song, which raised public skepticism about the criteria for determining "original" status [4][19] - The platforms' actions reflect a lack of a clear and transparent standard for defining "original" in the context of multiple versions of songs, indicating a need for improved governance in the industry [4][20] Group 3: Implications for Copyright System - The "dual original singer" situation underscores the necessity for a more refined and transparent copyright determination system that accommodates the evolving nature of music production and consumption [19][20] - The current copyright framework struggles to adapt to the complexities of multiple interpretations and versions of songs, necessitating a shift towards a more nuanced approach that balances emotional value and commercial interests [20]

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].