Universal, Sony and Warner License New Streaming Platform CÜR Music

3e4d8fe

CÜR Music, a platform vying to compete with heavyweights like Spotify and Apple Music, has launched in the US this week with 10 million licensed tracks.

According to a report by Music Business Worldwide, ”Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group have all licensed CÜR Music in the past few weeks”.

CÜR Music is most commonly described as a “hybrid streaming service” that “intersects internet radio services like Pandora and on-demand services like Spotify”.  But most recently, the company has raised $1.75 million in financing led by members of the company’s management and board of directors, which has sparked changes.

On the steering level, Bob Jamieson has now resigned as the vice president of CÜR’s Board, and Barefoot Media boss Bill Campbell has joined the company’s Board.

Perhaps more important, big deals have now been completed.  MBW reported that ”an 8K SEC document was filed January 19th, outlining that CÜR Media has entered into a ‘Framework Digital Distribution Agreement with Sony Music Entertainment for a ‘limited non-exclusive license under SME’s copyrights to digitally distribute a wide catalog of certain sound recordings and related materials owned or controlled by SME’.” Sony is said to have safe-guarded itself with an advance that is guaranteed from CÜR. This advance reportedly starts at the end of January.

MBW also stated in their report that ”CÜR entered into a ‘Subscription Streaming and Enhanced Radio Services Agreement’ with Warner Music Inc on January 13th.”  Warner has granted CÜR ‘with a limited non-exclusive license to stream certain sound recordings owned or controlled by Warner’ within the US.

With WMG there is also an agreed guaranteed advance.

MBW reported that ”CÜR’s Universal deal is covered in a separate SEC 8K document, filed January 25th”.  The report says that CÜR has entered into an “Audio Streaming and Conditional Download Agreement” with UMG starting January 15th.  Advances have not been reported for Universal as of yet.

CÜR has two ad-free subscription tiers: one at $2.99 a month (‘Octo’), and one at $6.99 a month (‘Inked’).  Both are far cheaper than competing services which typically costs $9.99 per month for a premium tier.

 

The price point sets CÜR apart from the existing music streaming companies monopolizing the market.  The new agreements with the major music companies could be what differentiates CÜR from its competitors.

About The Author

Charlotte Hassan

Music lover and industry newbie originally from Leeds, I spend my days trying to make sense of a chaotic, ever-changing industry on DMN. I look forward to spirited (and constructive) discussions!

Related Posts

18 Responses

  1. Name2

    The price point sets CÜR apart from the existing music streaming companies monopolising the market.

    Yeah, I suppose that the half-dozen companies taking up 100% of the streaming market could be called a monopoly.

    If they were one company, and not a half-dozen.

    Reply
    • Charlotte

      Monopolising can refer to an ‘organisation’ or a ‘group of organisations’ taking control of a specific service or trade. Despite there being ‘half a dozen’ music streaming companies, there are only a select few that dominate the market.

      Reply
      • MarkH

        “Monopolising can refer to an ‘organisation’ or a ‘group of organisations’ taking control of a specific service or trade.”

        Like record labels?

        Reply
      • Name2

        The concept you’re looking for is “oligopoly”.

        Still doesn’t make what you wrote right, but at least the dart you’re trying to throw wouldn’t be flying into the poor bartender’s eye.

        Reply
    • English Teacher

      “Yeah, I suppose that the half-dozen companies taking up 100% of the streaming market could be called a monopoly.

      If they were one company, and not a half-dozen.

      The concept you’re looking for is “oligopoly”.

      Actually, you’re the one throwing misguided darts.

      He said “monopolising,” when referring to a concentrated market, not a “monopoly” or a reference to an individual company. His usage is correct. The words “monopolize” and “monopoly” have subtly different meanings.

      A group of companies can form an oligopoly, which oligopoly “monopolizes” a market, while none of them are, themselves, a “monopoly.”

      Reply
      • Name2

        Nice try. To “monopolize” a market, your monopoly (or oligopoly, as the case may be) has to use its unbalanced power in that market to stifle competition, control prices, etc. That’s how judges tend to look at it when the question comes up.

        Now, one could argue that there is a small oligopoly which is deciding who succeeds and fails in the streaming marketplace, and what prices will be charged in the streaming marketplace, but that oligopoly is composed of the Big Three recording companies, to the best of our current knowledge.

        There’s no amount of twisted and tortured chatter and handwaving which currently gets you to: streaming market is monopolized by the existing streaming companies which make up that market, simply because existing streaming companies make up 100% of the streaming market. It’s a sophomoric tautology.

        Reply
  2. DOA

    What a dumb ass name…. I hate when American companies (they are based in CT), use diacritic letters in their name thinking it will make them cool. Ü R DOA.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “thinking it will make them cool”

      That’s not why they do it. They do it because it takes talent to find a name that isn’t taken already.

      But it won’t fly: A name is worthless if you can’t use it in Twitter/Insta/Facebook handles and .com domains.

      Reply
  3. Versus

    Terrible name. How are you supposed to pronounce it with the umlaut?

    Isn’t a cur a mongrel dog?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *
Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.