By Emmanuel Legrand
To start with, the DCMS report, even if it contains some mistakes or flaws, is an impressive body of work. It takes a panoramic views at the way the music industry functions and how various parties interact, with a focus on the relationship between the music sector and the music streaming business.
The document is quite nuanced, and for people who do not eat and breathe in the music biz on a daily basis, MPs came up with quite a good understanding of the way the music sector operates and put it on paper.
Most of the time, Parliamentary reports tend to end up in the bin, due to a lack of political will to act on the issues raised in these reports. Or sometimes the best way to bury an issue is to set up an inquiry and make sure that by the time the end report is released, the issue has either disappeared or has become irrelevant.
Not going to please everyone
When the DCMS committee launched its inquiry into the economy of streaming, there were a lot of people skeptical, this writer included. Will MPs grasp the real issues? Will they have the right people of the stand? And what will be the final outcome?
Many people have said it was a waste of people's time and of taxpayers' money. Well, it appears that it was not a total waste, and that this report will stand for future reference by the depth of its findings and by the scope of the recommendations it makes.
Now, the findings of the report will not please everyone. It must be noted that UK Music, the umbrella organisation representing the British music sector has been quite discreet in its reaction to the report. It's quite probably because it is difficult to find a consensus on the issues and the solutions offered by the report.
The publication of the DCMS report was welcomed by performers and songwriters as it caps a two-year campaign to get these issues addressed by policy-makers, and saw the likes of Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney ask the government to #FixStreaming.
Addressing the safe harbours issue
The findings of the report are less in synch with the agendas of record labels, majors and indies, since equitable remuneration was definitely not high on their shopping list. However, getting ER would require some form of legislation and this is where it could get sticky, as two forces will clash: on one side the performers and songwriters, and on the other the labels, with streaming services as silent witnesses.
The report is quite balanced on the streaming business – there will no revolution on this side except that the report invites to take look at both the business models, with a hint to user-centric, and how revenues are split, and the impact of the use of algorithms in the discovery of music. These are valid points, that are discussed elsewhere than in the UK too and in need for a solution.
The report also rightly points out the discrepancy between certain players in the streaming industry and others, most notably YouTube, which has been singled out by MPs for having a competitive edge thanks to the safe harbours system. The UK is not going to transpose the European Copyright Directive, but may be inspired by Article 17 as a remedy to YouTube's market situation.
The start of something
Now, will the DCMS report lead to changes? In this interview, Ivors Academy Chair Crispin Hunt thinks the report is the start of a process that should see at some point some government intervention. This indeed really looks like the start of something, not the end.
The world is watching: significant changes in this area will certainly find interested parties elsewhere, and push for similar changes. Give credit to British MPs. They have shaken the tree and so far their work has been quite remarkable.
Emmanuel Legrand
Other articles about the DCMS report:
> DCMS report proposes a 'reset' of the music industry
> Reactions to the publication of the DCMS report
> The main recommendations of the report
> An interview with Crispin Hunt, Chair of the Ivors Academy
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.