Introduction

The music industry’s convoluted licensing and royalty system often leaves artists waiting months to be paid and struggling to track rights across jurisdictions [1]. Metadata about who wrote or owns a song frequently gets lost as music files pass between distributors, streaming platforms, and social media, causing credit and payment to slip through the cracks [2][3]. For example, it’s easy for an opportunistic producer to bootleg an existing track with minor changes and claim credit, leading to untold losses for the original artist [4]. The rise of remix culture on platforms like TikTok has amplified this problem – viral mashups and covers often outpace official licensing, leaving creators and rights-holders uncompensated. A blockchain-based music file format on Ethereum aims to solve these issues by embedding licensing and royalty information directly into digital audio, enforced by smart contracts. This report provides a comprehensive technical analysis of how such a system would work, covering smart contract design, integration with production tools and players, metadata compatibility, infrastructure scalability, and cross-chain considerations. Real-world scenarios, like the TikTok remix boom, will illustrate how blockchain can bring transparency and fairness to music rights management in ways the current system struggles to achieve.

1. Smart Contract Logic for Music Rights

Licensing and Royalty Terms in Solidity: On Ethereum, smart contracts (written in Solidity) would encode the ownership and licensing terms of a music file as an NFT or similar token. Each song could be represented by a contract or token that lists the parties and their percentage shares of royalties (songwriters, producers, etc.), along with permissions for usage. Upon creation of a music NFT, the contract can be initialized with split percentages for various contributors and predefined royalty rules [5]. For instance, an NFT representing a song might specify that the original artist gets 50% of revenue, the producer 30%, and two co-writers 10% each. These splits are stored on-chain in the token’s smart contract. Whenever the song generates revenue (through a sale, stream, or license fee), the smart contract automatically distributes funds to each stakeholder according to these percentages [6][7][8]. This is enabled by self-executing code: once a payment is received by the contract, it triggers logic to split and send the appropriate portions to the collaborators’ wallet addresses, instantly and without intermediaries [9][10]. Royalties for secondary sales can also be encoded (e.g. via the ERC-2981 standard) so that if the NFT is resold, a percentage goes back to the original artist [11]. Furthermore, licensing terms such as “allowable uses” can be codified – for example, the contract might include a clause that automatically grants a mechanical license for covers if a preset fee is paid, or that forbids any commercial use without an on-chain transaction to purchase a license.

Derivative Works Tracking (Remixes, Covers, Samples): Smart contracts can be designed to link derivative works back to the originals in a transparent way. When an artist wants to create a remix or cover of an existing blockchain-registered song, the new work’s smart contract can reference the original song’s contract ID. For instance, a remix NFT might include a pointer to the ID of the song it remixed, indicating the new work is derived from the original. The system can require that this reference be provided at the time of minting a new song token. By encoding these relationships, the blockchain creates a public, traceable map of music lineage – from original songs to remixes, covers, or samples that incorporate them. Crucially, this allows automated attribution and revenue sharing. The smart contract logic can check these links and route royalties accordingly. For example, if a producer releases a remix as a new NFT, the contract could be programmed to automatically split a portion of any income back to the original song’s rights-holders [5][12]. A real implementation of this concept is seen in the Paradime platform: when a DJ remixes two tracks that each specify a 25% royalty for remixes, the DJ’s profit is reduced by 50% total, and that share is automatically allocated to the original artists of the two tracks [12].

Encoding Permissions and Similarity Detection: To support derivative works, the smart contracts would also encode what kinds of derivatives are permitted and under what conditions. For instance, an original song’s contract might declare that covers are allowed if they credit the original and pay a 10% royalty, whereas unlicensed samples are prohibited unless a sampling fee is paid. Enforcing these rules at scale requires a detection mechanism to identify when a new song is actually a cover or contains a sample of an existing work. This is where a blockchain-based detection system would interface with the smart contracts. In one approach, audio fingerprinting algorithms could generate a unique acoustic fingerprint for every registered song [13]. An acoustic fingerprint is essentially a hash that “returns the same value for all inputs that sound the same to a human listener” [13]. This means if a new audio file is submitted, the fingerprinting service can compare it against a database of existing song fingerprints to find matches above a certain similarity threshold [14]. If a new track’s fingerprint is, say, 80% similar to an existing song, the system could flag it as a cover version of that song. If a fingerprint match indicates a smaller segment (for example 5-10% similarity, as might occur when a short sample is used), it can flag it as containing a sample of the original. These similarity thresholds (e.g. 80% for a cover, 5% for a sample) can be fine-tuned based on how much of the original is present in the derivative. Once a match is identified, an oracle or off-chain service can call the smart contract of the original song to log that a derivative use has been detected, linking it to the new work’s ID.

Automatic Attribution and Royalty Splits: When a derivative work is allowed and registered, the blockchain can automatically handle attribution and royalty splitting based on transparent on-chain data. The new derivative NFT, through its reference to the original, signals that some portion of its royalties belong to the original rights-holders. Smart contracts can be programmed to route payments accordingly whenever the derivative generates revenue. In a cover song scenario (e.g., someone records their own performance of an existing composition), the cover’s smart contract might automatically split a percentage of its streaming or sales income to the songwriter’s address listed in the original song’s contract. This split is executed instantly by code, so all parties get paid in real-time rather than waiting for quarterly royalty reports. The entire chain of derivation can be tracked – if Song C samples Song B, which was a remix of Song A, all relevant predecessors could receive micro-royalties in proportion to their contribution each time Song C earns money. Because all ownership and split information is on-chain, anyone can audit these transactions. This transparency helps build trust that royalties are allocated correctly: creators and even fans can see that when a remix they like is played, a slice of the payment went to the original artist, a slice to the remixer, etc., all according to the rules coded in the contracts. The moment a listener purchases or streams a song, funds can flow through a cascade of smart contracts to each rights holder within seconds, as opposed to the months-long payment cycles of traditional systems [15]. The automation eliminates errors and disputes over who is owed what – no participant has to trust a label or distributor to do the accounting, since the blockchain ledger shows exactly how many times a song was used and the smart contracts execute the royalty formula precisely [16][17].

Enforcing Usage Restrictions: Smart contracts can also actively enforce restrictions on music usage. Because they act as autonomous “digital rights agents,” they don’t just calculate payments – they can prevent certain actions if conditions aren’t met [18]. For example, a contract could require that anyone minting a new song NFT that references an existing song must present a proof of license (this could be another token or a cryptographic signature from the original artist) before the mint is allowed. If someone tries to bypass the system and create an unauthorized derivative, the smart contract governing the music platform could simply refuse to list or distribute that content. Similarly, a contract could be coded to revoke playback access to a song if a user breaches certain terms (analogous to a DRM system, but enforced by code and consensus). While blockchains themselves are transparent ledgers rather than content gateways, they can work in tandem with apps to enforce rules: for instance, a contract might mark a content ID as “blocked” if a rights holder issues a takedown request on-chain, and any compliant music player (or streaming service) would then check the chain and refuse to play a blocked ID. Since smart contracts “automatically enforce the agreed terms once predefined conditions are met” [18], they could be used to ensure that unlicensed uses (condition not met) simply never trigger the release of the music file or any royalty payout. In essence, the combination of on-chain fingerprint references and coded rules creates an environment where a song “knows” how it can be used. This greatly reduces the risk of non-compliance with licensing terms – a remix contest winner, for example, couldn’t secretly exploit samples beyond what the contract allows, because any attempt to monetize or register unauthorized usage would fail the smart contract checks. By recording every usage and license transaction on the ledger, the system builds an evidence trail that can back up enforcement. If a dispute ever arises, the on-chain data provides cryptographic proof of who had rights and whether a usage was licensed, which would make legal enforcement (if needed) far more straightforward [19]. Overall, smart contracts on Ethereum serve as the logic layer that encodes music copyright rules (ownership splits, royalty rates, allowed derivative uses, and restrictions) and ensures they are followed automatically, without relying on trust in intermediaries.

2. Integration with Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs)

Blockchain-Enabled DAWs: For a blockchain-based music format to gain adoption, it should integrate seamlessly into the tools artists already use to create music – the Digital Audio Workstations like Logic Pro, Pro Tools, Ableton Live, or FL Studio. Integration can be achieved through plugins or built-in features that connect the DAW to the Ethereum network. Imagine a producer finalizing a track in Ableton Live and, with one click, “registering” the song on the blockchain. This registration process could be facilitated by a DAW extension that communicates with an Ethereum node or uses a Web3 API: the DAW would gather the song’s metadata (title, contributors, splits, etc.), perhaps compute an audio fingerprint or hash of the final mix, and then invoke a smart contract transaction to mint the song as an NFT on Ethereum (or a connected layer-2). The user would confirm the transaction in their crypto wallet, and within seconds the song’s unique ID and metadata would be recorded on-chain. This could happen in the background as simply as exporting an audio file today. In fact, one proposed vision (the DotBlockchain project) is that “at the inception of the music, [we] digitally encode rights information into a modern format” [20] rather than leaving it to be added later. By integrating blockchain publishing directly into DAWs, artists can secure copyright and set licensing terms the moment a song is created. Such a workflow removes the need to register works in multiple disparate databases; the blockchain becomes a global, unified rights registry that the DAW writes to when you finish your track.

Direct Song Registration from DAWs: Several real-world projects hint at how this could work. For instance, Paradime Audio (a blockchain music platform) plans a web-based DAW and even a VST (Virtual Studio Technology) plugin that producers use for creating music [21]. When a user of Paradime’s DAW creates a song, they can mint it as a “Digital Audio Track NFT” right from the workstation [22]. During this creation, the artist would input the royalty splits and allowed remix/sample fees (if any), which the DAW interface could prompt for and then encode into the NFT’s smart contract [23]. The audio file itself (stems, instrumentals, vocals, etc.) can be bundled or referenced in the NFT so that anyone who later buys or licenses it can access those components. Crucially, by registering at the source, the provenance of the music is established on-chain with a timestamp and the creator’s signature, providing instant proof of ownership. This helps combat scenarios where someone else tries to claim your work. (A common issue today: an artist releases a remix on social media, it goes viral, and then an unrelated person uploads that track to Spotify to claim it. This happened to one Reddit user whose TikTok-popular remix was stolen and monetized by someone else [24]. Had the remix been registered on-chain by the original remixer, any platform could verify the rightful owner and avoid such hijacking.) In a blockchain-integrated DAW workflow, the act of exporting or publishing a song inherently includes “notarizing” it on Ethereum, which secures the creator’s rights and the metadata before anyone else can.

Embedding Licenses in Exported Files: Beyond on-chain registration, the DAW can embed the blockchain licensing information directly into the audio file it exports. Traditional formats like MP3 and WAV allow metadata tags (like ID3 tags or INFO chunks) which could include a reference to the song’s blockchain record – for example, the Ethereum contract address and token ID corresponding to the track, or a content hash that matches one stored on-chain. This would serve as an on-file certificate of provenance. Any copy of the file carries with it the identifier of its registered license. A music player or another DAW can read that metadata and know, for instance, “This WAV file is licensed under token 0xABC123 on Ethereum, owned by Alice.” More robustly, DAWs can also embed digital watermarks in the audio data itself for tracing. Watermarks are imperceptible patterns in the sound that encode an ID. A well-designed watermark survives transformations – if someone converts the WAV to MP3 or even slightly remasters it, the watermark (and thus the ID) is still detectable [25][26]. Using this technique, a DAW could insert a unique ID from the blockchain into the audio before output. Later, when that audio is played or re-imported, the ID can be extracted and cross-checked on-chain. The Digimarc digital watermarking approach outlines this scenario: a music file’s ID (for example, an ISRC or a new blockchain-based ID) is embedded as a watermark in the file, and that same ID links to an on-chain entry containing all the rights info [27][28]. The DAW, having access to the private key of the creator (via their wallet), could even sign the audio file’s hash and store the signature on-chain as part of the metadata. This way, anyone can verify that the file hasn’t been tampered with and was indeed issued by the rightful artist (similar to code-signing in software). By packing blockchain references into the exported file, the format ensures that no matter where the file goes – whether it’s uploaded to YouTube, shared on TikTok, or sent to a friend – it carries a beacon pointing back to its authentic on-chain record.

Use of Stems and Samples via DAW Integration: A powerful feature of blockchain-integrated DAWs is simplifying sample licensing. Producers often want to use another artist’s beat or vocal stem in their own track, which traditionally requires contacting rights holders and clearing the sample (a process that can be costly and slow). With a blockchain system, a DAW could have a built-in library of music snippets (stems) that are available on-chain. A producer working in FL Studio might browse a decentralized marketplace of stems, seeing usage terms and prices enforced by smart contracts. If they find a drum loop they like, the DAW can read its blockchain license: for example, “This drum loop can be sampled for 5% of derivative royalties and a one-time 0.01 ETH licensing fee.” By clicking an import button, the DAW would automatically execute the required blockchain transaction – paying the fee (via the producer’s crypto wallet) and logging on-chain that the producer now has a licensed usage of that loop [29]. Immediately, the smart contract of the loop could grant a usage token or otherwise mark that user as permitted. The DAW then pulls in the actual audio data (perhaps stored on IPFS or a decentralized storage pointed to by the contract). This all can happen within seconds during the creative flow. The Open Music Initiative and others have envisioned such “smart licenses” for samples, where a simple API call clears a sample in real-time [30][31]. As the producer continues to work, the DAW keeps track of which on-chain licensed pieces are present in the session. When the final song is ready to publish, the DAW knows it includes that drum loop and can automatically reference the original loop’s ID in the new song’s contract (establishing the derivative link). It might even calculate the appropriate split (5% to the loop’s creator, as per the license) and bake that into the new song’s royalty structure. This tight integration means compliance is handled at creation time – the artist doesn’t need to manually negotiate rights after the fact; the DAW and smart contracts have done it. Producers and artists get access to a world of pre-cleared samples and stems, fostering creativity with less legal friction, while original creators are assured attribution and compensation every time their work is reused (all enforced by code).

Preventing Unauthorized Usage in Creation Tools: Integration with DAWs also provides an opportunity to prevent unauthorized use of music assets at the source. In a scenario where an artist tries to import a song file into their DAW (say to remix it) but has not obtained a license, a blockchain-aware DAW could detect this. For example, if the file has a watermark or on-chain ID, the DAW can query the blockchain to see if the user (their wallet) has the rights to use it. If not, the DAW might warn the user or even refuse to load the file in editable form, thereby “preventing leakage of audio files outside the context of the authorized platform” [32]. Paradime’s approach of making NFT audio files only consumable in their official DAW/VST is one way to enforce this – it ensures stems cannot be downloaded or misused outside the system [33]. In more open DAWs, it may not outright block the user (since offline use is hard to technically prevent), but it can embed indicators that any export will be tagged as unlicensed. The key point is, DAWs can become first-line enforcers of licensing: by building awareness of the blockchain music format, they guide artists to do things the right way (licensing samples, registering new works) and make it easy to comply. This integration of blockchain into creation tools ultimately streamlines the workflow of rights management to be part of the creative process, rather than a burdensome afterthought.

3. Music Players and Streaming Platforms

On-Chain License Verification for Playback: Once music is published in a blockchain-based format, playback applications can leverage the on-chain data to ensure only properly licensed content is played (at least in official channels). A blockchain-aware music player, say a future version of Spotify or a new decentralized app, would check the song’s blockchain record when a user tries to play it. If the user tries to play a local file, the player could read the embedded license ID (from metadata or watermark) and then query the Ethereum blockchain (or a cache of it) to verify the status of that ID. The player could verify that the content is indeed registered (proving its authenticity), and even see if the user has the rights to play it. For consumer listening, the latter isn’t usually a restriction (anyone can play a published song), but in contexts like a business using music, the player could enforce that the business holds a proper license token for commercial use, for example. The more general use case is ensuring authenticity and logging usage. Because each song has a unique on-chain identity, players can avoid the problem of duplicate or fake tracks. If someone altered a file and tried to pass it off as another song, the blockchain ID embedded would not match, and the player could flag it. This is analogous to how web browsers check SSL certificates – the music player checks the song’s “license certificate.” If something doesn’t match (e.g., the file hash doesn’t align with the one on-chain, indicating the file might have been tampered with or not the official version), the player can warn the user or refuse playback. This helps prevent the spread of pirated or wrongly attributed files, since legitimate players only recognize the genuine on-chain-registered items.

Automatic Royalty Reporting on Play: Crucially, music players and streaming services can use blockchain to report usage and trigger payments in real time. In a blockchain music ecosystem, when a user hits “play,” the application could log that play as a transaction or an off-chain submission that later batches to the blockchain. For example, a decentralized Spotify alternative might have smart contracts that accumulate micropayments per play. Each time a song plays, the app could either directly send a tiny payment to the song’s contract or record an event that can be settled later. One envisioned model is for the player to “deposit a transaction on a blockchain in real time” every time a track is streamed [34]. This transaction would reference the song’s ID and possibly the listener (or just increment a play count on-chain). With millions of plays, doing this on the Ethereum mainnet in real time could be impractical (due to throughput limits and fees), so in practice the player might interact with a Layer-2 or sidechain for play logging (discussed more in Section 5). Still, the principle is that playback data becomes an open ledger entry. A concrete example is given by Digimarc: when a DSP (Digital Service Provider, like a streaming service) plays a track, it “deposits a transaction on the blockchain containing [the track’s ID]”, and this allows all the relevant parties (labels, PROs, publishers) to query the blockchain and see those plays for royalty purposes [35]. In this way, the blockchain acts as a global, transparent “play count” ledger that any rights holder can audit. Compare this to today’s black-box approach where artists rely on platforms to report streams. Here, the artist could independently verify every usage logged on-chain. Moreover, smart contracts could automatically split and route micro-royalties from these play transactions (if the platform’s token economics support that) so that with each play, the fractions of a cent due to each contributor are immediately allocated [36][37]. This eliminates the need for centralized royalty clearinghouses because the moment a song is streamed, its smart contract ensures everyone gets paid fairly according to the on-chain splits.

Decentralized Streaming Platforms (e.g. Audius): Audius is an example of a decentralized music streaming platform already embracing blockchain. Audius uses a blockchain (initially an Ethereum sidechain, now Solana for its content ledger) to manage song availability and to reward artists/fans via its $AUDIO token [38][39]. While Audius did not initially encode detailed derivative licensing as described here, it demonstrates how a streaming service can be built on Web3 infrastructure. In a blockchain-based music format context, Audius or similar platforms could integrate the licensing rules at the core. A decentralized platform would store the music files on decentralized storage (so no single company controls the files) and store the metadata and rights on-chain. When a user streams a song, Audius could automatically allocate a portion of its token or another stablecoin to the song’s rights-holders according to the splits in the song’s smart contract. This could even happen by users paying a tiny fee per stream (possibly hidden under the hood via pre-purchased credits or a subscription converted to tokens). The advantage is that an artist doesn’t have to trust Audius’s accounting – the royalty distribution is provably executed by smart contracts with each stream. Audius has been moving in this direction by partnering with rights organizations; a recent multi-territory licensing deal with ICE (a consortium of European rights societies) brought over 330,000 rights holders’ catalogs into Audius’ ecosystem [40][41]. This indicates that even traditional stakeholders see the benefit: they can get paid via Audius’s on-chain marketplace whenever their compositions are played, without the platform hiding any data [42]. Another decentralized platform, Musicoin (an earlier project), experimented with “streaming as mining,” where each play triggered a blockchain reward to the artist. In our Ethereum-based format, we can imagine an optimized version of this where perhaps Layer-2 smart contracts tally plays and release payments periodically, all visible to the community. Additionally, decentralized platforms can enforce licensing by design: if a user tries to upload a track, the platform’s nodes can fingerprint it and check the global blockchain registry to ensure it’s either original or that the uploader has the rights (this protects against the platform inadvertently hosting pirated content). If a match is found and the uploader doesn’t have a license, the decentralized network of nodes can reject the upload – essentially a community-enforced Content ID system. This way, a platform like Audius could avoid the legal pitfalls of user-uploaded content by leveraging the very blockchain data it helps maintain.

Traditional Platforms (Spotify, Apple Music) with On-Chain Verification: Even incumbent streaming services could incorporate blockchain-based verification and payment in the future. Spotify and Apple Music have huge infrastructures and existing contracts, so they wouldn’t switch to a purely decentralized model overnight. However, they could use the blockchain music format as a verification layer. For example, when a record label delivers a song to Spotify, along with the audio file they could provide the song’s Ethereum NFT ID. Spotify could cross-check that the NFT’s metadata matches the song (title, ISRC code, etc.) and see the splits of who should get royalties. This could augment Spotify’s internal royalty system by providing a single source of truth that all parties agree on (since it’s on-chain). In fact, the concept of the “Dot Blockchain Media” project was exactly this: a shared, immutable ledger for music rights that companies like Spotify could read from to get the correct metadata and rights info [43]. In practice, Spotify could use it to reduce metadata errors (ensuring songwriters are correctly identified) and to streamline licensing of user-generated content. With many songs blowing up via TikTok or other apps, Spotify often has to deal with unofficial uploads and confusion over rights. If every officially released song had a blockchain ID, then when someone tries to upload a track, Spotify’s system could fingerprint it and immediately tell if it matches an existing song ID. If yes, and the uploader isn’t the rights-holder, Spotify can block it or route them to the proper rights holder for permission. This is similar to YouTube’s Content ID but using a global decentralized database of music fingerprints/IDs instead of YouTube’s private database [44]. On the flip side, if a song trending on TikTok isn’t in Spotify’s catalog yet, Spotify could look at the blockchain registry (if the creator published it there) to quickly find out who the creator is, what the license terms are, and even use the on-chain contact info to reach out for an official license or upload.

Traditional platforms could also write data to the blockchain to improve transparency. For instance, Apple Music could post play counts or an aggregate usage statistic for each song on-chain at regular intervals. This would be akin to the earlier example of depositing a play transaction for every stream, but perhaps done in batches (to be more efficient). The blockchain entry could say “Song X was played 1,000,000 times in July 2025 on Apple Music,” signed by Apple’s key. While not as real-time as a fully decentralized approach, this would still greatly increase transparency, allowing artists and rights owners to verify platform-reported numbers against an immutable log. Additionally, the same identifiers embedded as watermarks in files supplied to DSPs (digital service providers) can tie back to blockchain entries [45]. For example, Spotify could embed each distributed stream with the song’s ID as a watermark. PROs (Performance Rights Organizations like ASCAP) or labels could scan random streams (or use a detection service) to extract these IDs and then query the blockchain to ensure they have been paid or at least that the play was recorded [46]. This kind of cross-check reduces the dependence on trust in the platform’s reports.

While Spotify and Apple operate in a centralized way, adopting a blockchain-based music format in parallel could solve industry-wide data discrepancies and delays by providing a neutral ground for information. They would effectively be interfacing with the same system that indie artists and decentralized apps use, making the music ecosystem more interoperable. In the long run, if such a format became standard, even the big platforms might execute licensing via smart contracts – e.g., instead of signing a separate license for every country’s rights society, a label could simply point to the blockchain entry that says “pay 70% to this address for every stream,” and Spotify’s system could directly follow those rules in its payout process [47]. In summary, traditional players can enhance their systems with blockchain verification to ensure a song’s provenance and rights are clear and to reassure creators that plays and royalties aren’t being under-reported.

4. Compatibility with Existing Audio Formats

Incorporating Blockchain Metadata into MP3/WAV/FLAC: One of the design goals of a blockchain-based music format is to work with or alongside existing audio file standards so that music can still be easily distributed and played on any device. Instead of reinventing the audio encoding (since formats like MP3, WAV, FLAC are already efficient and universally supported), the blockchain format would extend these with additional metadata. Most audio files have fields for metadata tags – for example, MP3 has ID3 tags that store information like title, artist, album, year, etc. We can simply add new fields or reuse existing ones to store the blockchain info. For instance, the “comment” field of an MP3 could contain a string like: License: Ethereum 0x1234... TokenID 42. A more structured approach could define a custom ID3 frame (ID3 frames can be custom-defined by using certain frame identifiers) to specifically store a “BlockchainLicenseURL” or similar, which could be a URI pointing to the on-chain record (e.g. an Etherscan link or a decentralized lookup like ethereum:0x1234.../42). WAV files, which often carry INFO chunks or can carry an embedded XML, could include similar data. FLAC (and other formats like Ogg) use Vorbis comments which are free-form key=value metadata – one could insert BLOCKCHAIN_CONTRACT=0x1234..., TOKEN_ID=42 as comments. These embedded references ensure that even a copy of the file carries the breadcrumb back to its origin. They also help with song authenticity: if two files claim to be the same song but one has a valid on-chain license tag and the other doesn’t, users (or software) can favor the one with verifiable info.

To complement metadata, the content hashes of files can be used. When a song is registered on-chain, the file’s cryptographic hash (like SHA-256) can be stored in the contract. If someone later downloads an MP3 claiming to be that song, a quick hash of the file can be compared to the on-chain hash. If it matches, the file is an exact copy of the originally registered audio; if not, it might be altered. However, simple hashing is brittle – any tiny change or re-encoding will change the hash [48]. That’s why the use of acoustic fingerprints and watermarks is important for compatibility across different encodings. An acoustic fingerprint identifies the underlying audio content in a way that is independent of file format or minor edits. Shazam and other services use this to identify songs even from compressed or partial audio. In our context, we could generate a fingerprint for each song and store that on-chain (or a hash of it on-chain, with the full fingerprint maybe stored in decentralized storage due to size). If someone uploads the song in a different format (say a FLAC was registered but an MP3 is being verified), the system can fingerprint the MP3 and still find a match because, as noted earlier, the fingerprint will “return the same value for all inputs that sound the same” [49]. This allows format-agnostic recognition. The blockchain entry could even store multiple fingerprints for different aspects – for example, one for the melody (useful to catch covers that are new performances of the same composition) and one for the actual audio (to catch direct samples). There are known limitations: fingerprints are excellent at identifying the same recording, but distinguishing a cover (new recording of same composition) might require machine learning analysis of melody/harmony rather than a traditional fingerprint [50][51]. Still, ongoing advances in audio AI could be integrated as oracles that submit data to blockchain (e.g., an AI service could listen to a new track and post on-chain: “Track X is a cover of Track Y with 85% melodic similarity”).

Audio Watermarking for Robust ID: Another compatibility strategy is watermarking, which we touched on in the DAW section. Unlike a fingerprint (which is derived from the audio but not embedded in it), a watermark is deliberately inserted into the audio. The benefit of watermarking is that it can encode a persistent ID that stays with the audio through transformations, and it is controlled by the content owner [52][53]. For example, a label releasing a song could watermark the audio with its blockchain song ID. Even if the MP3 is re-compressed or a segment of it is used in a remix, a detector can often extract that ID from the waveform (assuming the snippet is long enough and the watermark survived mixing). Watermarking technology today can be very robust – some schemes survive distortion, time stretching, pitch changes, etc., which means even a remix that changes the speed or key of the original might still carry the telltale markers of the source. The Digimarc paper notes that “watermarks are the only means of associating metadata with digital music files that meet all criteria” of being persistent and reliable across distribution channels [54][55]. By embedding the blockchain’s unique song ID as a watermark, we create an invisible barcode for music. Music players, DJ software, and even social media platforms could run background checks for watermarks. For instance, TikTok’s system could automatically scan uploaded videos for any audio watermarks; if it finds a blockchain ID, it can automatically attribute the music in the video to the registered creator and perhaps even execute a micro-license for that usage. This would be a vast improvement over the current scenario where copyright detection is hit-or-miss and often results in videos being muted or taken down with little nuance. With watermark IDs, TikTok could instead choose to share revenue with the rights-holder as per the on-chain terms (for example, if the license says non-commercial use is free but commercial use requires payment, TikTok can see that and act accordingly).

Preventing Duplicates and Unlicensed Copies: With a global blockchain registry of music, the goal is that each unique song (audio content) has a unique ID and record. If someone tries to register a song that is already on-chain, the system should catch it. This is where the combination of hashing, fingerprinting, and metadata comparison comes into play. Suppose an impostor attempts to mint an NFT for “Song A” which is already licensed by someone else. If they use the exact same audio file, the hash will match the existing record and the contract can reject it (knowing that hash is already associated with an existing token). If they altered the file slightly to avoid a direct hash match, an acoustic fingerprint comparison would likely still flag it as the same audio content with high probability [56]. In that case, the protocol (possibly via a decentralized oracle network of validators) can deny the duplicate registration or mark it as a conflict to be resolved by governance or the courts. The mere existence of a public ledger of content makes it much harder for someone to claim ignorance (“I didn’t know this song was already taken”) because a quick search can show all registered songs. Over time, the system could integrate with legacy identifiers too: songs typically have an ISRC (International Standard Recording Code) and composers have an ISWC. These could be linked in the blockchain metadata so that even industry outsiders can correlate the blockchain entry with the known identifiers. If two entries claim the same ISRC, that’s a red flag of a duplicate claim. Because the blockchain is neutral, it could serve as the backbone of a “Global Distributed Database of Musical Rights” where each song is encoded once with its rights [57]. Benji Rogers of DotBlockchain described the idea that every time a song is created, it would be encoded along with its rights data into a blockchain, creating that unified database [58]. This drastically reduces duplicates and confusion.

To ensure compatibility, the blockchain-based format doesn’t necessarily require end users to handle new file types. Users could still be dealing with familiar .mp3 or .wav files; the difference is those files now carry extra info and correspond to on-chain entries. In fact, some proponents suggest a new extension (like “.bc” for blockchain) that internally might be a container including both the audio (maybe as FLAC for lossless) and a signed metadata ledger [59]. However, even without a new extension, the existing formats can transport the needed data. It’s similar to how .docx files are just XML zipped (you could embed additional XML for rights), or how PDFs can have embedded signatures. The key is any format chosen must remain playable by standard software if we want broad adoption. So the strategy might be: use established audio codecs (MP3, AAC, FLAC) for the sound, use metadata tags and watermarks for the blockchain link, and optionally use a separate sidecar file or JSON (for advanced metadata) when needed. Also, backward compatibility could be maintained – old players would simply ignore the new metadata if they see it (they’d still play the audio), whereas new players would actively use it. This way, the industry could transition smoothly: files could be distributed widely, and as more players and platforms join the system, they start leveraging the blockchain info.

Authenticity Verification via Fingerprinting: Another aspect of compatibility is making sure that when a song is encountered with no metadata (say someone strips out the tags or it’s a recording of a live performance), it can still be recognized. Here, the blockchain network could integrate with decentralized fingerprint databases. Projects have proposed storing an acoustic fingerprint on the blockchain along with metadata and a link to the actual recording on IPFS [60][61]. Because fingerprinting “can’t be removed or separated” from the audio itself in the sense that it’s inherent [62], even if the file’s explicit blockchain tags are removed, anyone can re-generate the fingerprint from the raw audio and query the blockchain for a match. For example, a content creator finds an audio clip of a song with no info. They run a fingerprint tool on it, get a fingerprint code, and search that in the blockchain’s index. If the song was registered, they’ll find the matching entry that has that fingerprint and thus discover the song’s identity and owner. This is a decentralized analog to what Shazam does (Shazam’s database is private, but here the “database” is the blockchain or an open repository of fingerprints). This capability is critical for preventing anonymous misuse – no one can hide a song’s origin just by removing tags. Even in derivative works, the system can use partial fingerprints to identify pieces of songs inside longer mixes or mashups.

In summary, the blockchain-based format is designed not to replace the audio encoding formats, but to augment them with a robust layer of metadata and identification. By using existing tagging systems, cryptographic hashes, acoustic fingerprints, and watermarks, it ensures that any copy or variant of a song can be traced back to its rightful on-chain record. Compatibility with legacy formats and devices is maintained (you can still have an .mp3 file that plays everywhere), while adding new abilities to those formats (the .mp3 now can tell you who owns the song and under what license it’s being used, verified via Ethereum). This dual approach allows the music to remain as accessible as ever, even as the rights management around it becomes far more advanced and transparent.

5. Infrastructure and Scalability

Ethereum Mainnet vs Layer 2 Solutions: Ethereum’s global network provides the security and decentralization that make the above system trustworthy, but executing every interaction (every play, every sample license) directly on the Ethereum mainnet would be cost-prohibitive at scale. Gas fees on Ethereum can range from a few dollars to tens or even hundreds of dollars for complex transactions during peak usage [63]. Clearly, paying a $5 fee each time a song is streamed or a micro-royalty is split is not feasible. To solve this, a blockchain-based music format would leverage Ethereum for what it does best (secure ownership, high-value transactions) and use Layer 2 networks or sidechains for high-volume, low-cost activity. Layer 2 solutions like Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, etc., allow transactions to be processed much more cheaply while ultimately anchoring their security to Ethereum. For example, Polygon (a popular sidechain/Layer 2) can handle transactions for a fraction of a cent and is routinely used by NFT platforms to avoid high fees on mainnet. Arbitrum and Optimism (optimistic rollups on Ethereum) reduce fees by bundling many operations off-chain and then posting a summary on-chain; they could bring costs down to cents or less for basic calls. In practice, the music dApp could deploy the main smart contracts (like the NFT contract that represents songs) on Ethereum mainnet for permanence and broad accessibility, but use an L2 for logging each play or handling frequent micro-payments. State channels or streaming payment protocols (like Coil or Superfluid) might also be employed for per-second streaming royalties: a channel could accumulate tiny payments as a song is played and settle the total on-chain when closed.

Ethereum’s upcoming scalability upgrades and the use of rollups promise to greatly increase throughput (potentially up to 100k transactions per second in the future) [64], but until then, offloading to L2 is prudent. Audius, for instance, after testing many scaling solutions, chose Solana for its content ledger, specifically citing Solana’s ability to handle ~50,000 TPS with costs around $0.00001 per interaction [65]. That kind of capacity is what’s needed for a global music system where every play could be an “interaction.” If we stick within the Ethereum ecosystem, solutions like Polygon or Arbitrum can offer similar low costs (Polygon ~ $0.0001, Arbitrum maybe $0.05 or less per tx depending). These networks ensure that artists and users aren’t burdened by high fees when using the music format. A likely architecture is a hybrid on-chain model: Ethereum mainnet holds critical references (e.g., the unique song IDs, and perhaps an index of hashes/fingerprints to prevent duplicates), while a sidechain/rollup handles the heavy transactional load (play logs, incremental payments). The sidechain can periodically commit a checksum to Ethereum to inherit security (for example, every hour it posts a hash of all new events to Ethereum, so there’s an immutable timestamped anchor). This way, even if the sidechain is compromised temporarily, one could reconstruct what happened up to the last Ethereum checkpoint.

Decentralized Storage of Music Files: Storing actual audio files on Ethereum is infeasible (even a 5 MB MP3 would cost a fortune in gas). Instead, decentralized storage networks are utilized to hold the music files and even detailed metadata, with the blockchain storing only content addresses or pointers. IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) is a popular choice: it’s a distributed storage system where files are addressed by the hash of their content (a content identifier or CID). When a song is registered, the audio file can be uploaded to IPFS, and the resulting CID (a cryptographic hash) is placed in the token’s metadata on Ethereum. Anyone who has the CID can retrieve the file from the IPFS network, and because it’s content-addressed, if someone tried to swap the file, the CID would change, alerting that it’s not the original. IPFS ensures that the file can be shared peer-to-peer without relying on a single server. However, IPFS content isn’t automatically permanent; it needs nodes to “pin” it. This is where services or incentives (like Filecoin, which is built around incentivizing IPFS storage) come in. Alternatively, Arweave is another decentralized storage solution that guarantees permanent storage for a one-time fee. Many NFT projects use Arweave to store images/artworks because they want the data to live forever on-chain. Arweave can similarly store music files – you would upload the file to Arweave, and it gives you a transaction ID (which is also a content hash). You can then reference that ID on Ethereum. Arweave’s design ensures that data remains available “at least 200 years” (by economic modeling) and likely much longer [66]. Using Arweave or IPFS+Filecoin means the music assets are decentralized – no single company can delete them, and they remain accessible as long as the network exists.

The metadata about a song (title, credits, etc.) could either be stored on-chain in the NFT’s data fields if it’s small, or stored as a JSON file on IPFS/Arweave and referenced by a hash. Many NFTs today follow a practice: the token has a pointer to a JSON metadata file which then contains the actual details and links to media. We could do the same for music NFTs. One benefit here is that even large collaboration info can be stored without bloating the Ethereum chain, yet still be verifiable via the hash.

Hybrid On-Chain/Off-Chain Model: The system likely uses a combination of on-chain and off-chain components to optimize cost and speed. On-chain (Ethereum or L2) holds the logic and critical records: song IDs, ownership, royalty rules, usage events (maybe aggregated), and payment flows. Off-chain handles bulk data and heavy computation: audio file storage, fingerprint analysis, similarity detection, etc., but provides results to the blockchain. For example, fingerprint matching a new upload against 100,000 existing songs is something you’d do on a server or distributed network off-chain because it’s computationally expensive. Once it finds a match (or none), it sends the relevant info on-chain (perhaps calling a verification contract to record “Track X is 85% similar to Track Y”). This could be done via an oracle service such as Chainlink, which can feed external data into smart contracts in a trusted manner. Similarly, when a user actually streams a song, the audio data is delivered via a content network (IPFS or a CDN that caches from IPFS), not through the blockchain; but the event of that stream is logged to blockchain via a lightweight transaction.

Decentralized indexer nodes (like The Graph protocol) can be used to make querying the on-chain data efficient. If a music player wants to quickly verify a license, instead of scanning Ethereum directly, it could query an indexed database of song IDs and rights (which itself listens to the blockchain and updates accordingly). This provides the speed of a web2 database with the trust of web3 data.

To achieve scale, Layer 2 rollups (Optimistic or ZK) can specifically allow thousands of transactions (like play events) to be rolled up into one Ethereum transaction. For instance, a ZK-rollup could accumulate 10,000 micropayments and then post a single proof to Ethereum that validates all of them. This can bring costs per action down to fractions of a cent while still leveraging Ethereum’s security. Another approach is using sidechains like xDAI or a consortium chain just for the industry that later notarizes to Ethereum. Audius initially used the POA Network (an Ethereum sidechain) for its content management and then migrated to Solana for higher performance [67]. In our Ethereum-centric design, we might use something like Polygon or Arbitrum for similar effect. Importantly, the user experience should remain smooth: listeners or artists shouldn’t have to manually switch networks or pay gas for every play. This can be handled by having the platform sponsor the gas (common in some dApps) or using meta-transactions where the user’s action is signed but a relayer actually submits it on-chain covering the fee (potentially recouped from a subscription).

Decentralized Identity and Credits: Another infrastructure element is identity of artists and contributors. While not strictly about scalability, it’s part of the backbone. We’d want a way to link real-world identities (or at least persistent profiles) to blockchain addresses so that, for example, “Alice (alice.eth) is the songwriter of song #123”. Ethereum’s ENS (Ethereum Name Service) can help by mapping human-readable names to addresses. Projects like BrightID or Verifiable Credentials can also attach reputation or verified info (like “Alice is a verified member of ASCAP” etc.). This can be stored off-chain but anchored on-chain for authenticity.

In summary, the infrastructure of a blockchain music format uses a mix of Ethereum for trust and Layer 2/off-chain for efficiency. Ethereum (and possibly its Layer 2s) provide the transactional backbone and state, ensuring global consensus on who owns what and who gets paid. Decentralized storage networks provide the content delivery, ensuring the actual music is always accessible yet not clogging the blockchain. By intelligently partitioning duties – on-chain for critical rights data and financial transactions, off-chain for large data and compute – the system can scale to millions or billions of uses. The use of L2s means that the cost per action can be brought down to fractions of a penny, which is essential for something like music streaming where margins are thin and volumes are huge. And because the architecture is modular, it’s possible to upgrade parts (e.g., switch to a faster chain if needed, or incorporate new storage tech) without changing the core principle that the single source of truth for rights and usage is the blockchain.

6. Cross-Chain Applicability

While Ethereum is a logical choice for implementing this music format (due to its mature smart contract ecosystem and wide adoption in NFTs), the concept is not limited to Ethereum. Other blockchain networks could offer similar functionality, each with their own trade-offs in security, cost, and community. Here we discuss how the model could be implemented on alternative chains like Solana, Avalanche, or BNB Chain, and compare their characteristics to Ethereum.

Solana Implementation: Solana is a high-performance Layer 1 blockchain known for its speed and low fees. Recreating a music rights system on Solana would involve writing smart contracts (called programs in Solana) in Rust. Solana’s Token program and NFT standards (Metaplex) could be used to represent music NFTs. The advantage of Solana is transaction throughput and cost: it can handle tens of thousands of transactions per second, and fees are typically a tiny fraction of a cent [68][69]. This means logging every single play of a song or every micro-payment on-chain is far more feasible on Solana than on Ethereum L1. In fact, Audius’s decision to migrate their content ledger to Solana was driven by exactly this need for scale [70]. A Solana-based music format could potentially log plays in real-time directly on-chain without needing L2 constructs. Additionally, Solana’s fast confirmation (block times ~0.4s) might allow more immediate feedback in apps (like instantly updating play counts). However, Solana has some trade-offs: it’s less decentralized in terms of validators than Ethereum and has experienced a few network outages in its early years. While Solana is improving, some in the community view it as less battle-tested. Moreover, Solana’s development ecosystem is distinct (Rust vs Solidity), meaning one would have to implement or port the entire logic (though projects like Audius and Metaplex provide a lot of groundwork for music and NFTs on Solana already). If wide adoption by mainstream platforms is a goal, Solana’s advantage is that users can interact with very low friction (no need for gas fees in the way Ethereum users experience, since fees are negligible and can be abstracted). Also, Solana being designed for consumer scale could handle an application with millions of daily active users listening to music, which is critical for any music service.

Avalanche Implementation: Avalanche is another chain that offers high throughput and compatibility with Ethereum’s tools (via its EVM-compatible C-Chain). Deploying on Avalanche C-Chain would be very similar to Ethereum technically – one could use Solidity smart contracts with minimal changes. Avalanche’s appeal is much lower fees than Ethereum mainnet (often only a few cents or less per transaction) [71] and faster finality. Avalanche’s architecture also allows custom subnets, meaning one could create a specialized subnet just for music content that might have its own rules or token economics, yet still benefit from the broader Avalanche ecosystem. Compared to Ethereum, Avalanche is less widely adopted in the music or NFT space, but it has strong technical capabilities. Security-wise, Avalanche has a robust consensus and a growing validator set, though it doesn’t yet match Ethereum’s level of decentralization. If an application values EVM-compatibility (to reuse Ethereum code and knowledge) but needs cheaper transactions, Avalanche could be a good fit. A potential model is to use an Avalanche subnet for the heavy operations (like constant streaming data) and occasionally bridge important records to Ethereum for universal visibility. Avalanche’s subnet flexibility could even allow a hybrid permissioning – for example, a consortium of major labels might run validator nodes on a subnet to ensure certain performance or compliance, while using the public mainnet as needed for open access.

BNB Chain (Binance Smart Chain) Implementation: BNB Chain is an EVM-compatible chain with very low fees and high throughput, making it a candidate for this system. All Solidity contracts could be ported to BNB Chain easily. Users on BNB Chain benefit from fast and cheap transactions (often <$0.10) and a large user base especially in Asia. However, BNB Chain (formerly Binance Smart Chain) is known to be much more centralized in terms of validator control. It operates with around 21 active validators (recently aiming to expand to 40) which are largely chosen through Binance’s influence [72][73]. This means that, compared to Ethereum’s thousands of independent validators, BNB Chain is more prone to coordinated halts or changes – indeed, in one incident, BNB Chain validators halted the chain to mitigate a hack [74]. For a music rights system, this centralization might be a concern if one of the goals is censorship resistance and neutrality. On the other hand, if one’s priority is low cost and one doesn’t mind a somewhat federated trust model (some might argue it’s not very different from trusting a consortium like a record industry group), BNB Chain could serve the purpose and integrate well with Binance’s ecosystem (which could help with user onboarding, as many people have BNB Chain wallets by virtue of using Binance Exchange). BNB Chain’s advantage is also its large developer community and many existing DeFi/NFT platforms; a music platform there could tap into those users (for example, integrating with BNB’s NFT marketplaces).

Other Chains: There are other networks like Cardano, Polkadot, Flow, etc., which could also implement music licensing. Cardano, for instance, supports NFTs and has a community of music NFTs. Its approach (UTXO model with Plutus contracts) is quite different, so a direct port of Ethereum logic isn’t possible, but one could build similar functionality. Cardano emphasizes formal verification and might attract projects wanting high assurance in contract correctness (important for managing royalties to many people). Solana we covered; Flow was designed for digital assets and has been used for things like NBA Top Shot; it could potentially handle music NFTs with rich metadata and has the benefit of a consumer-friendly design (Flow has human-readable transaction security messages, etc.). Tezos and Near have also been used for NFTs and could theoretically host music rights as well. Each chain has different programming languages and standards, which means the ecosystem might fragment – an interoperability solution (like cross-chain bridges or using a common protocol that multiple chains implement) could mitigate this.

Ethereum vs Others – Security, Fees, Adoption: Ethereum’s main advantage remains its security and widespread adoption. It has the largest set of developers, the most tested smart contract code, and a very resilient network of nodes worldwide. It is seen as the most secure base for high-value assets (which music rights can be, considering catalogs can be worth millions). Also, Ethereum has established standards (ERC-721 for NFTs, ERC-1155, ERC-2981 for royalties, etc.) and many supporting tools (wallets, marketplaces) that would immediately work with a music NFT. By contrast, a new chain or less popular chain might require building that user tooling from scratch or convincing users to move there. Additionally, Ethereum’s community includes many artists and musicians who have already experimented with NFTs, meaning the concept of music on Ethereum has some cultural traction. However, Ethereum mainnet’s downside is cost and scalability, as discussed. With Layer 2s, Ethereum is extending its capabilities to match other chains’ performance, so one might get “the best of both” – Ethereum security with L2 speed/cost.

Solana’s advantage is pure performance, but it’s relatively newer and has had stability issues (though these may diminish over time). It also requires a different skill set to develop on (Rust), which can be a barrier for teams that know Solidity. That said, Solana has seen a rising NFT ecosystem and could similarly foster a music ecosystem, especially given its success in attracting projects like Audius. Solana’s community is quite large now, and they tend to focus on consumer dApps (like gaming, music) where throughput is key.

Avalanche strikes a middle ground: by being EVM-compatible, it leverages Ethereum’s developer pool, and it offers much cheaper transactions now. It hasn’t yet achieved the same NFT market share as Ethereum or Solana, but it’s considered technically solid and more decentralized than BNB Chain. Avalanche could be an enterprise-friendly option too (with subnets allowing known participants to have certain roles if desired).

BNB Chain’s main advantage is user base and low friction – many users have BNB in their wallets and could easily start using a music dApp there, and the costs are negligible. But, as noted, one basically accepts Binance as a de facto central authority in that ecosystem, which might be fine for some use cases but not ideal if the goal is an open, uncensorable system. The fact that BNB Chain could be halted and patched within hours [75][76] shows the trade-off: faster coordination (good against hacks) but less true decentralization.

Interoperability

In a world where multiple chains host music rights, interoperability protocols would be useful. Projects might use bridges to allow, say, a music NFT on Ethereum to be represented on Solana or vice versa. One could envision a future standard (like a “music rights token”) that is chain-agnostic, with each chain implementing a version that can sync with others. Until such standards mature, the approach may be multi-chain deployment: for example, a platform could let the user choose on which chain to mint their music rights (as Paradime plans to do with Cardano, Polygon, Ethereum, etc. options) [77].

Each chain’s music NFTs might live in that ecosystem’s marketplaces, but through bridges or federated databases, they could be made visible across platforms. An artist might even leverage multiple chains: use Ethereum mainnet for the official record, but mirror it onto Polygon for cheaper transaction usage, or use Solana for the actual streaming operations but keep an Ethereum “receipt” of the content for broader discovery. Cross-chain comparison reveals Ethereum as more secure and established, Solana as high-speed and low-cost but newer, Avalanche as EVM-compatible and scalable with a balance of security vs speed, and BNB Chain as very cost-effective and user-friendly but with centralization concerns.

From an adoption perspective, Ethereum still has the lion’s share of NFT collectors and perhaps more institutional attention (e.g., many big brands choose Ethereum for NFT drops). If this music format aims to get industry-wide adoption (labels, publishers, streaming services), Ethereum’s network effect and credibility might ease partnerships. On the other hand, if aiming for mass consumer adoption (e.g., millions of teenagers on a music app), a chain like Solana or an Ethereum Layer 2 that offers near-free transactions is essential for a smooth UX. It might be that a combination is used: Ethereum for the asset/identity layer and another chain for the engagement layer. This is exactly what Audius did: keep the AUDIO token and governance on Ethereum (where the value accrual and security is paramount), but move content ledgers to Solana for scale [78].

In conclusion, the blockchain-based music format can be implemented on various chains, and in fact, competition between chains could spur innovation in this domain. Ethereum provides a solid foundation and widely accepted standards, while chains like Solana and Avalanche offer performance that can handle the real-time nature of music usage. The ultimate choice may come down to the priorities of the project: maximum trust and interoperability (lean Ethereum/mainnet), or maximum performance and low cost (lean alternative chains or Ethereum L2s). There’s also nothing preventing a progressive strategy – start on a sidechain or alt-L1 to prove the model with low fees, then eventually settle key records on Ethereum for posterity.

By comparing the ecosystems, one might note that Ethereum’s community has a strong push for Web3 in music (many DAOs and startups in this space), whereas Solana’s community is rapidly building consumer dApps (which could drive user adoption faster). So the comparative advantage of Ethereum is in its security and established ecosystem of tools and buyers [79], while the advantage of others like Solana is in immediate user experience (speed/cost) and possibly a more centralized but nimble governance that can adapt quickly (which can be good or bad). Ideally, as interoperability matures, users won’t need to know what chain they’re on – they’ll just use the music, and the different blockchains will handle their parts under the hood, all syncing to ensure artists get their due wherever the music is played.

Case Study: TikTok Remix Boom and Blockchain Solutions

To illustrate how a blockchain-based music format could solve current industry challenges, let’s consider the TikTok remix boom. TikTok has become a powerhouse for making songs go viral – often through user-generated videos that feature snippets of music, or through trending “challenges” where many users remix or cover a portion of a track. While this virality can catapult unknown songs to global hits, it also introduces chaos in licensing.

Many times, a remix or sped-up version made by a fan catches fire, and the original artists or rights-holders struggle to catch up. An example is the story of a producer who made a remix that went viral on TikTok; someone else took that remix and uploaded it to streaming platforms without permission, even attempting to claim copyright over it [80]. This left the original creator in a position of having to prove their ownership and issue takedowns after the fact, by which time the opportunist had already racked up streams.

How Blockchain Could Help

If the music in TikTok videos were tracked via the blockchain-based format, the moment a remix is created and shared, it could be identified and attributed. Suppose the remixer had used a blockchain-integrated DAW or app to create their remix (as described in Section 2): they would have registered the remix on-chain, linking it to the original song’s ID and establishing themselves as the creator of that specific remix. The remix file posted on TikTok would carry a watermark or fingerprint tied to that on-chain record.

Now, when that remix audio starts trending, any platform – whether TikTok itself, YouTube, or Spotify – could quickly query the blockchain to see if the audio has a known ID. TikTok could have a system where it scans popular audio clips against the blockchain registry. Once it finds a match (in this case, the remix is 80% similar to the original song, and it’s registered as a derivative by user X), it can automatically ensure that usage is logged. TikTok might even trigger smart contract payments: for each video using the remix, a tiny portion of TikTok’s creator fund or ad revenue could be set aside to be split between the remixer and the original artist according to the on-chain royalty rules. Even if TikTok doesn’t directly pay per usage, the data of which audio ID was used in how many videos is on-chain, so the original artist and the remixer have a transparent view of the trend’s scale.

Now, consider when that trend crosses over to streaming platforms. Because the remix was properly registered, if someone (the remixer or the original artist’s label) wants to officially release it on Spotify, they can do so quickly and with clear rights. The original artist’s contract might have already specified that remixes require a certain split; the blockchain entry could reflect that, so the remixer knows what they’re entitled to and the original rights-holder automatically gets their share when monetized.

On the flip side, if an unrelated third party (like the opportunist in the example) tries to upload the audio, Spotify’s content system can fingerprint it, find the blockchain record showing it’s already owned, and block the unauthorized upload from going live – thus preventing the hijack attempt altogether. This flips the current scenario: instead of the rights-holder chasing the infringer, the infringer’s attempt is DOA because the blockchain registry provides a definitive public claim to the work.

Attribution and Rapid Licensing

The TikTok scenario also often involves derivative creativity – someone might take a song and add their own spin (like Nightcore versions, mashups of two songs, parody lyrics, etc.). With traditional systems, these either live in a gray area or need complex negotiations to publish legally. A blockchain music format could have standardized ways to license such usage.

For example, if a song is registered, the rights-holder might tick a box for “TikTok use allowed” with conditions. Perhaps they allow anyone to use up to 15 seconds of the song in UGC videos for free (knowing it promotes the song) but require a license for commercial remixes. These terms can be coded or at least recorded.

So when a TikTok user selects a song for their video, TikTok’s app can check: “Is this use covered by an existing on-chain license?” If yes, proceed normally; if not (say someone used a longer clip or altered the song), TikTok could automatically obtain a micro-license. This could be done by calling a smart contract that maybe charges a tiny fee for extended use or simply logs that user X has created a derivative. The blockchain can thus enable instant, automated licensing for viral trends.

Rights-holders could even pre-authorize certain types of remixes: for instance, an artist might say, “Anyone on TikTok can remix my chorus as long as I get 50% of any revenue from it.” When a creative fan does so, the blockchain link ensures if that remix blows up, the original artist’s share is accounted for.

Rewarding the Right People

The transparency of blockchain would help ensure that when record labels or PROs look at the TikTok boom, they can quickly see who contributed. In many viral cases, the person who made a popular remix or mashup doesn’t get credit – the label might release an “official version” copying that style.

But if the remix is on-chain and clearly timestamped by the creator, there’s public proof of their role. This empowers creators because they can point to the ledger and say, “I created this derivative on date X,” which serves as hard evidence.

In a collaborative model, the label could even directly negotiate on-chain: they might send the remixer an offer via a smart contract proposal (e.g., an NFT “remix deal” that the remixer can sign) to officially release the track together. The blockchain can facilitate these new kinds of collaborations that are more open and data-driven, reflecting the participatory nature of platforms like TikTok.

Stopping Misuse Early

Another challenge in the TikTok era is tracking usage across a vast number of small creators. PROs traditionally track radio plays and such, but tracking thousands of 15-second uses on TikTok is daunting.

Blockchain, combined with content recognition, can handle volume by design (especially on high-throughput networks). Each TikTok video using a song could register an event (maybe not each one on Ethereum mainnet, but on a scalable network feeding into the main ledger). If someone tries to compile those videos into a YouTube compilation, the watermark/fingerprint again triggers a record.

The chain of usage is recorded, so if an artist wants to compile all the ways their track was used, they query the chain and see, for example, 5,000 TikTok entries, 200 Instagram Reels entries, etc., all referencing their song ID.

This depth of data can ensure they are compensated properly and can also yield insights (like which country generated the most remixes, etc., helpful for marketing).

In essence, the blockchain-based format addresses the speed and attribution gap that the TikTok remix phenomenon has highlighted.

It provides a way to “proactively embrace and support emerging platforms” [85] by baking in support for fractional usage and viral derivative works from the start. The TikTok boom showed that music consumers are also creators. Blockchain supports this by making every new creator a part of the ecosystem rather than an outsider: your TikTok sound becomes an entry in the global music ledger, and if it’s popular, you as the creator of that version have a stake (which is recognized and paid).

This kind of system could turn the remix culture from a legal headache into an integrated part of the music economy, where viral fame for one person translates into transparent rewards for all contributors (original artist, remixer, and even the platform). The net effect would be a fairer distribution of the enormous value that viral music moments generate, aligning incentives so that rights-holders are less inclined to issue takedowns and more inclined to let fans engage with their content, knowing the blockchain will ensure they get their due credit and share. The “open remix contest” becomes a norm, not a rarity, because blockchain can handle the accounting and permissions seamlessly [86].

We’ve already seen artists like Lil Nas X and others benefit from TikTok trends; a blockchain system would amplify those benefits and reduce the friction and disputes along the way.

Conclusion

A blockchain-based music file format on Ethereum represents a paradigm shift in how music rights are managed, tracked, and monetized. By encoding licensing terms, royalty splits, and derivation history directly into smart contracts, it creates a self-regulating ecosystem where payments and permissions flow automatically according to transparent rules, rather than through months of administrative processing [87][88].

The integration with creative tools (DAWs) ensures that rights information is captured at the moment of creation, preserving the metadata that is so often lost in today’s music supply chain [89]. Through the use of audio fingerprints and watermarks, the system can robustly identify works even as they are transformed, enabling attribution for remixes, covers, and samples with precision and fairness.

Listeners and platforms become participants in a real-time ledger of usage, where every play or share is an opportunity to reward creators – an instant, global royalty payment network that stands in stark contrast to the opaqueness of the current model [90][91].

Scalability is addressed by leveraging Ethereum’s evolving infrastructure (Layer 2 networks) and complementary decentralized technologies (IPFS/Arweave for storage), yielding a solution that can grow to industry-level workloads without prohibitive costs. Importantly, the model is not locked to one chain: it can flourish on any blockchain that balances performance and security, with Ethereum providing a strong foundation and other chains like Solana offering avenues for high-throughput implementation [92][93].

This cross-chain potential means the core ideas – transparent rights, automatic royalties, provable provenance – can become universal in the music industry, not confined to a single platform or vendor.

Real-world examples like the TikTok remix boom underscore the need for such innovation. Blockchain can transform these from contentious situations into collaborative opportunities, where every viral remix or meme is tracked and becomes part of an artist’s revenue stream rather than a leakage [94][95]. Artists would no longer fear their work being used without credit; the system would inherently credit them (and pay them) whenever their content inspires new creations.

Fans and secondary creators are empowered too, as their contributions are formally recognized and can earn value if successful. In short, this format aligns incentives across creators, platforms, and audiences by establishing trust through code: no more mysterious calculations of royalties, but a clear view on-chain of who gets what and why.

There are challenges ahead – from achieving industry-wide adoption, to ensuring the legal system recognizes code-based licenses, to building user-friendly interfaces so that artists and consumers don’t need to understand blockchain to benefit from it. However, the momentum is building. Projects in Web3 music are already experimenting with NFTs, decentralized streaming, and on-chain splits.

Major streaming services are exploring blockchain for rights management [96]. The vision of a globally unified music rights database is no longer fanciful; it is being prototyped in pieces by various groups. This technical analysis shows that, by bringing those pieces together on Ethereum and its extensions, we can resolve the long-standing inefficiencies of the music business – making it more equitable and efficient.

From the songwriter in a small town to the superstar artist, everyone stands to gain from a system where “everyone involved gets proper credit, payment, and more” [97]. The blockchain-based music file format can be that system: a new standard that carries the rich metadata of rights and ownership with the music itself, across every play, every remix, and every platform, forever.