Music Licensing Inc. (SONG)

“You cannot play music in public without a license. Someone has to grant that license, collect the fees, and pay the songwriters.”

Music Licensing Inc. (OTC: SONG) operates as a performing rights organization in the United States, sitting between the creators of music — songwriters, composers, music publishers — and the entities that use their work publicly. When a radio station plays a song, when a restaurant streams music overhead, when a bar has live entertainment, when a YouTube channel embeds music, someone must have granted permission and collected fees on behalf of the copyright holder. Music Licensing Inc. issues those licenses and collects those fees. It is a rights-enforcement and revenue-distribution business positioned at a critical chokepoint in the modern music economy.

The United States has long maintained a legal and regulatory framework for performing rights licensing. The major performing rights organizations — ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC — have dominated this space for decades. They maintain vast catalogs of registered compositions, negotiate blanket licenses with broadcast and streaming services, audit compliance, and distribute royalties to rights holders. These organizations are large, well-capitalized, and deeply embedded in the licensing system. Music Licensing Inc., founded in 2018, is a newer entrant attempting to compete in this space. The company positions itself as an alternative to the incumbents, offering performing rights registration and licensing for songwriters and publishers who may find ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC restrictive or who want representation outside the traditional collective structures.

The appeal of a new licensing organization. For some creators, the appeal is straightforward: an alternative to established organizations with different terms, faster licensing processes, or lower fees. For others, it is ideological — a preference for decentralized or technology-enabled solutions to rights management, or skepticism about the traditional collective model. Some may simply be unable to secure representation from the major organizations due to their catalogs being too small, too niche, or not yet established. Music Licensing Inc. also has positioned elements of its service around blockchain and smart contracts, appealing to creators interested in technology-enabled licensing and transparent royalty distribution. The company emphasizes direct registration, faster payouts, and technological modernization as advantages over the incumbents.

The structural challenge: the blanket license bottleneck. The core tension in the music licensing business is that most music consumption today occurs through blanket licenses issued to large broadcasters and streaming services. A radio station, television broadcaster, or streaming platform does not license each song individually; it buys a blanket license covering the entire performing rights catalog from an organization like ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. Those organizations negotiate with the broadcasters and collect fees on behalf of all their registered members. This is economically efficient but creates a winner-take-most dynamic: the largest collective, representing the most songs in the highest demand, has the strongest negotiating power with the licensees. A smaller or newer organization with a subset of songs has limited leverage. Broadcasters and streamers prefer working with organizations covering broad catalogs rather than having to negotiate with many smaller entities. This structural advantage benefits the incumbents and makes it very difficult for new entrants to compete for blanket license fees. The fragmented licensing landscape that blockchain advocates envision — where licensees can directly pay creators for specific songs — would overturn this model, but such a system has not yet gained meaningful adoption despite years of experimentation.

Market positioning and scale. Music Licensing Inc. has built a catalog of registered songs and has begun issuing licenses to smaller venues and digital platforms. The company reached a milestone of announcing a strategic partnership or launching services with certain platforms, but the overall market share and revenue remain very small compared to the incumbents. The company went public on the OTC Markets, and in January 2025 announced a reverse stock split (2,500-for-1), a frequent signal of distress in OTC-listed companies where share price has collapsed. OTC trading is extremely thin, and the stock has been highly volatile. For a company in the rights licensing business, trading liquidity is a proxy for confidence in the business model and growth prospects.

The long game and regulatory backdrop. Music Licensing Inc.’s viability depends on whether it can grow its registered catalog to a size that makes it material to licensees, and whether the regulatory or technological environment shifts to favor alternative licensing models. If blanket licensing remains the standard — which it has for decades — then smaller organizations will always be at a disadvantage. If, however, streaming platforms increasingly seek direct licensing with creators, or if regulatory pressure forces blanket-licensing organizations to be more transparent or competitive, a smaller entrant might carve out a niche. Alternatively, the company could pivot toward technology licensing, offering software and smart-contract infrastructure to creators seeking to manage and monetize their own rights without going through any collective organization. That would be a departure from the traditional PRO model but might align better with the company’s technology emphasis. Anyone researching Music Licensing Inc. should examine its recent regulatory filings (SEC CIK 0001671132), understand the size and composition of its catalog, and assess whether it has any exclusive deals with high-demand creators or platforms that would distinguish it from the incumbents. The OTC listing and reverse stock split suggest the company is under capital and operational pressure, which is not uncommon for ventures trying to challenge entrenched systems, but it does raise the question of whether Music Licensing can sustain itself long enough to achieve meaningful scale.