UK Government Committee Recommends 50% Streaming Payments to Music Creators

Music streaming royalties in the United States are comically small. The tech companies originally purported to democratize music distribution, but in reality they have entrenched themselves in a financial ecosystem that pays the artists even less than the traditional record label model of the 1960s ever did through an oligarchy that wields outsized bargaining power.

Back in 2018, the US Congress passed the Music Modernization Act which looked promising from the standpoint of increasing artist streaming income, but little substantive progress has been made for the music creators since then. The streaming revenue earned by music creators in the US is not appreciably better than it was before 2018.

In the United Kingdom, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons has recently issued a report entitled the Economics of Music Streaming. In this Report, the Committee adopts a shockingly pro-creator stance. You can read the entire 122 page report report below.

The huge takeaway from this report is that the Committee recommends that the UK government enact legislation that would impose a 50/50 split on streaming revenues between streaming platform and artist (See Report at p.47). In this respect, the UK government is light years ahead of the United States government position, which is simply mired in bureaucracy.

To put this in proper perspective, currently Spotify pays artists between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream, which means most artists do not earn enough revenue from streaming payments to even earn a living. Contrast that with Spotify’s $2.4 Billion gross earnings in Q3 2021 alone, and it becomes pretty tough to justify the notion that music creators are being treated equitably.

It remains to be seen what legislative action (if any) the UK Government will take on this matter. The Committee’s position should be noted by policy makers in the United States.

The Report contains Parliamentary information and is licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

The Coronavirus Crisis and the Live Music Industry

The Coronavirus Crisis has caused the unexpected and abrupt nationwide closure of many live performances and concert tours. Everyone involved in the production of these events has been hurt by the upheaval and the continuing uncertainty.

On Wednesday, March 25th at noon eastern, Tuk Law will present a live videoconference to address the effect that the Coronavirus Crisis has had on live performers, specifically for musicians, storytellers and DJs, as well as what the crisis means for presenters of live events.

Bryan Tuk will be joined by Patrick Brogan, ArtsQuest’s Chief Programming Officer in this hour long discussion.

This is a FREE event, but you must register here to participate in the live event.

Copyright Law Update: Led Zeppelin Prevails at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

For years, the members of Led Zeppelin have been defending a copyright lawsuit brought by the trustees of The Estate of Randy Wolfe, which alleged that Zeppelin had infringed on the Estate’s copyright of Taurus, which was a song written by Wolfe and performed by his band Spirit in the late 1960s.

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc ruling which ultimately sides with Led Zeppelin. The Ninth Circuit was considering the Estate’s appeal of the District Court ruling after a jury determined that no copyright infringement occurred. This is a vindication for Led Zeppelin and likely ends this claim. The Estate’s only recourse now is to file a petition for Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court receives tens of thousands of petitions a year, and can only grant a hearing in an extremely small percentage of those matters.

Read more

Podcast Episode: Taylor Swift, the Power of the Audience and Licensing Agreements

Recording artist Taylor Swift is waging a very public campaign against the company that owns many of her master recordings. Her audience seemingly is following suit. Social media is providing people a way to broadcast threats. We live in divided times.

A private equity firm ends up with control of Ms. Swift’s master recordings.

Analysis of the real root of this story is in this episode: the negotiation of the original licensing or production contracts and how those contracts can control the future conduct of the parties. Listen to the episode for more detail.

Tuk's Rules, Ep.20: Legislative Update on PA House Bill 561

PA House Bill 561 is a tremendously dangerous piece of legislation that has passed the PA House 115-12. This Bill - if passed in its current form - will prohibit liquor licensees (hotels, bars, restaurants) from paying young musicians who are performing there. Watch the video below for more detail. This Bill is moving VERY quickly through the legislative process.

CALL TO ACTION:

  1. Find your PA Legislator by clicking here.

  2. Call and email your PA Senator to object to the nonpayment of performers.

The Pennsylvania House Makes the Economy Even Worse for Working Musicians

The Pennsylvania House passed HB561, which allows liquor licensees (hotels, bars, restaurants) to hire minors to perform as musicians, but the same bill expressly prohibits any payment to those performers for their services.

This Bill passed the House by a vote to 185-12 with 5 absent. You can find the roll call of the vote right here.

If this Bill becomes law, there are serious implications for working musicians:

  1. The performance fees that establishments are willing to pay are going to decrease;

  2. It institutionalizes the fiction that young/beginning performers should perform (read: work) for free and give away their labor;

  3. This is a boon for establishments that can now book minors for zero dollars rather than hire professionals;

  4. This also impacts DJs who work clubs, because my reading of this Bill includes DJs also.

One of two things is possible. One alternative is that the State Representatives who voted for this legislation are totally ignorant of the economic difficulties musical performers face. Alternatively, the State Representatives who voted for this legislation are aware of the difficulties that musicians face and are indifferent at best or at worst, dismissive or hostile to the needs of musicians.

You can read the text of HB561 below: