Most business owners who play music at their venue believe they are doing nothing wrong. They pay for a Spotify subscription, connect it to the speakers, and consider the matter settled. What is often overlooked is that consumer streaming services such as Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music are licensed strictly for personal use. Their terms of service prohibit commercial use in any form. Playing them in a restaurant, hotel lobby, retail store, or gym constitutes a copyright violation, regardless of whether the account is active and paid for. The distinction between personal and commercial licensing is not widely understood, but the legal implications are significant.
The organizations responsible for enforcing music copyright in commercial settings are known as Performing Rights Organizations, or PROs. In the United States, the main bodies are ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR. These organizations actively monitor businesses for unlicensed public music use, typically beginning enforcement with a written notice before escalating to legal action. In early 2025, ASCAP filed 15 separate copyright infringement actions against establishments across the country. BMI pursued a federal lawsuit against a venue in Indianapolis after reaching out to the business more than 75 times without resolution. In another case, a pub in New Hampshire was sued for $150,000 following repeated ignored notices. Similar licensing frameworks and enforcement bodies exist in many other countries, including Indonesia, where public performance rights are managed through organizations such as LMKN.
A common misconception is that playing broadcast radio in a business is legally safe because the signal itself is free to receive. The same assumption is often made about music on YouTube. Neither holds up under copyright law. Radio stations hold broadcast licenses that cover transmission to individual listeners, but those licenses do not extend to a business retransmitting that signal as ambient music for customers. YouTube operates under similarly restricted terms, permitting only personal, non-commercial listening. The channel through which music is accessed does not determine whether its use in a public commercial space is lawful.
Smaller businesses tend to carry the most risk, not because enforcement targets them specifically, but because they are often the least informed about their obligations. Independent cafes, boutique hotels, salons, fitness studios, and small retail shops are visible, easy to monitor, and rarely have dedicated legal oversight for operational matters like music licensing. PROs and their equivalents in other countries have been known to conduct in-person venue visits, review social media content for audible background music, and monitor public event listings to identify potential violations. The assumption that enforcement is reserved for large commercial spaces is inaccurate.
Licensed background music services address this gap directly. These services are built for commercial environments and cover the necessary rights agreements on behalf of the business, typically consolidating multiple licensing requirements into a single arrangement. For most venues, the cost of proper licensing is relatively low compared to the potential liability of operating without it. Music remains one of the more effective tools for shaping the atmosphere of a space, but its legal use depends on having the right agreements in place, something that a significant number of businesses currently do not.
Sources: ASCAP Enforcement Actions 2025 | SXM Business, "Music Licensing for Business 2026" | Custom Channels, "Music Licensing Laws: What Businesses Must Know" | Jukeboxy, "The Ultimate Guide to Business Music Licensing in 2026" | Meridian Chapters, "Music Licensing for Hospitality 2026"