The Ivors Academy, led by its chair Crispin Hunt (pictured, below), has been at the forefront of the campaign to incite the British Parliament review the economy of streaming. The DCMS report can be seen as a victory for the Ivors and for groups representing songwriters and performers in the UK, since many of their ideas have made it into the final report, not least the principle of equitable remuneration. Here, Hunt explains to Emmanuel Legrand how the DCMS report is the starting point of a process that will transform the British music sector.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the report, based on your expectations? And why?
Crispin Hunt: It is is unsurprising that serious independent scrutiny of the music business reveals serious inequity. Musicians and songwriters have always known this forever, so have those working within the Industry if they are honest with themselves… It's simply that The DCMS Select Committee has opened the can and the worms are now visible. The report is a perfect demonstration of Parliament and Politicians at their best doing their mandated job of ensuring that markets function and society benefits. It is perfectly clear to all that the 21st century music business cannot continue to function – or deal – as it did in the 20th century, it simply must reform. Partnership not ownership is the way forward. This report calls for sensible protections for music makers to ensure that the value they drive is fairly shared with those that drive it.
In your opinion, who are the winners and the losers in this process?
Crispin Hunt: Obviously the losers will be the major labels , as it should be, who of course, because they no longer perform a development, manufacturing and distribution role can no longer justify a development, manufacture and distribution cut. This is market evolution. Labels do a fantastic job of marketing music, but they need to accept they play a smaller role in music’s success and so deserve a smaller share of its reward. Streaming is a song economy and the song, naturally, will and should become the dominant driver and the dominant receiver of music’s reward. This is how the market works, but as ever, the market needs gentle legislative oversight to ensure it functions. This report is the start of that process.
Aren't the majors an easy scapegoat for MPs?
Crispin Hunt: No, the dominance and practices of the majors deserve scrutiny. Consolidation is not the answer. The majors' market share model ossifies myopic poor practice, drives inaccuracy and narrows consumer choice. The music business has always romanticised its cutthroatedness, but with the scrutiny of social media such opacity cannot and will not be tolerated. The major publishers and labels should be separated to allow the market for music rights to function properly, Chinese walls could be a solution. The majors are but the first thing to fix across music. Their narrative of ‘help us grow the pie and then we can share it out’ demonstrably doesn’t hold water, let alone a stream of water. Regulation is needed to ensure streaming irrigates the ecosystem. Once inherent inequity within the music business is corrected attention can focus on platforms. First things first.
Assuming the Parliament votes for equitable remuneration, how do you see that shaping up?
Crispin Hunt: Parliament, in its wisdom, granted performers and songwriters rights to a fair share of revenue in broadcast, it is only sensible and right that those rights should apply where streaming is substitutional – or cannibalises – broadcast revenues. ER works well across rental, but rental is an outdated term. Subscription is the new rental and rental laws must be updated to describe subscription and uphold sensible historic rights for fair creator reward.
This report could be buried without any action taken. What do you expect to see in the next few months as a follow-up to this report?
Crispin Hunt: The recommendations within this report will stand whether this government acts upon it or the next government does. It makes sense for this Government to act to ensure that the UK’s world-beating musicians and songwriters share in the value they create rather than that value flowing out of the UK and into the pockets of foreign multinational corporations with little interest in preserving the UK’s cultural heritage. As a remoaner, I reluctantly concede that Brexit could allow UK Gov the agility and autonomy to act independently to ensure Britain sees the financial benefit of its Music. I note with some irony that the controlling players within the BPI are not British. Begging the question... is the BPI a misnomer?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.