The Chainsmokers have dethroned Calvin Harris as the electronic cash kings. The Chainsmokers made $46 million according to Forbes. Most of the money was generated from their residencies at the Wynn’s XS Nightclub and Encore Beach Club in Las Vegas, as well as festivals and private shows – not bad for two guys with a pair of turntables.

Below is Forbes ‘ full list of Electronic Cash Kings 2019:

1. The Chainsmokers ($46 million) 2. Marshmello ($40 million) 3. Calvin Harris ($38.5 million) 4. Steve Aoki ($30 million) 5. Diplo ($25 million) 6. Tiësto ($24 million) 7. Martin Garrix ($19 million) 8. David Guetta ($18 million) 9. Zedd ($17 million) 10. Armin van Buuren ($15 million) 11. Kaskade ($14 million) 12. Skrillex ($13 million) 13. Alesso ($12.5 million) 14. Afrojack ($12 million) 15. DJ Snake ($11.5 million, tie) 15. DJ Pauly D ($11.5 million, tie) 15. Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike ($11.5 million, tie)

A California jury has decided that Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” is a copyright infringement.

The lawsuit was brought by Christian rapper Marcus Gray who claimed that Katy Perry’s copied his track Joyful Noise’ – and that the Dr. Luke-produced song took the beat.

Perry and Luke insisted they had never heard of the modest hit ‘Joyful Noise’. He said Perry or Luke could have heard the track on YouTube or MySpace. Perry and Luke pointed out the fact that rappers beat he used was preexisting material. Regardless, they lost!

Do the two tracks sound exactly the same? Listen for yourself here.

DJ Marshmello is on a hot streak. He signed with WME for representation and the top Spotify global artist also landed a historic $60 million Las Vegas residency 2 year deal.

His third release is comfortably sitting at No. 4 on the Dance/Electronic Albums chart and his smash hit “Happier” with Bastille is charting at No. 1 on Hot Dance/Electronic Songs.

To top it off, he collaborated with Stuffed Puffs and sold a million bags of chocolate filled marshmallows at Walmart in less than 24 hours.

Billionaire Haim Saban is betting on music. He’s betting big. Like $500 million big. Who convinced him? Probably his friends Lucian Grainge and Lyor Cohen. “They thought we were on the cusp of the golden age of the music world,” says Saban. “The first thing that came to my head was, ‘If this is the golden age, why am I ignoring it?'”

He’ll invest $500 million in Los Angeles based label Saban Music Group (SMG). The company is led by CEO Gustavo Lopez, who ran the Latin company, Talento Uno Music, which was acquired in May by Saban.

“I can tell you that that $500 million is available now,” says Saban. “The timing of the expenditure will depend on the opportunities presented to us. I don’t think it will be 10 years, but I think it could be next week, or in two or three years.”

The money will go to artist development and acquisitions.

Are they hesitant being a new music label? Not really. “Bad Bunny wasn’t a superstar two years ago,” says Lopez. “We’re in a world where artists are developing at a faster pace than they ever were. One of our goals is finding artists that have strong regional appeal and make them into international stars.”

“We are not going to sign 100 artists,” says Saban. “This is going to remain a boutique label with significant resources to put behind the very few artists that we will sign. Except for hip-hop, there is no limitation to the categories of music we will look to be involved with. We will be very opportunistic.”

Taylor Swift created controversy when she accused Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande manager Scooter Braun for buying Big Machine Music Label which owns her masters. First, Taylor is not entitled to own her master recordings because she signed a contract with a music label. The music label spends money in marketing and promotion, hence owns the masters. Why would any company shell out millions of dollars and not own the masters? It doesn’t make sense. Think about it, 99% of artists who are signed do not own the masters.

Pop singer Kelly Clarkson is siding with Taylor recommended that she re-record her songs. Is this legal? No, and even if it were, she would cannibilize her own songs. You are essentially creating a black market.

“You become a competitor of your record label if you re-record and own new master recordings from the same compositions,” Brian Caplan, an intellectual property lawyer at the New York firm Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC tells Billboard.

“Caplan says that standard recording agreements have a re-recording restriction that prohibits an artist from re-making a song that was previously delivered to the record company (sometimes even ones that were not released during the contract’s duration) for a set period after the deal expires, a term that typically runs three to five years.”

“A lot of us are Monday morning quarterbacks on these contract issues, but 99 percent of artists signed to labels don’t own their own masters! It’s just the way it is,” he notes. The re-recording language in most contracts is fairly boilerplate, and as a fierce artist advocate, McPherson says it’s always something a lawyer tries to make as favorable as possible during negotiations.

“I’ll say two things: ‘it has to be released by you during the term’ — this master with this song — so if I record a song during the term but you don’t release it, I should be able to re-record that. That helps you if you get dropped and you don’t release your album; if you can’t negotiate a buy-back of your masters you can just go re-cut it. And you just try to make the post-term period as short as possible.”