MPs call for a 50/50 split for artists from music streaming... About time !

[funkgod]

"The music industry is weighted against artists, with even successful pop stars seeing "pitiful returns" from streaming, a committee of MPs has said.

They are calling for a "complete reset" of the market, with musicians given a "fair share" of the £736.5 million that UK record labels earn from streaming.

In a report, they said royalties should be split 50/50, instead of the current rate, where artists receive about 16%.

The findings came after a six-month inquiry into music streaming.

"While streaming has brought significant profits to the recorded music industry, the talent behind it - performers, songwriters and composers - are losing out," said Julian Knight, MP, who chairs parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee.

"Only a complete reset of streaming that enshrines in law their rights to a fair share of the earnings will do."

 

full bbc report here

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57838473

[Mykesbass]

We were doing this 20 years ago when, admittedly, streaming was In its infancy. The record company I worked for treated this as third party income, and as such was a 50/50 split. Amazing that the industry's top lawyers and managers have been settling for a royalty instead for so long.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Mykesbass

[BigRedX]

Slips 50/50 between between who? There are at least 3 parties involved - the streaming service, the record label and the artist, so straight away this doesn't work.

 

If the MPs mean a 50/50 split between record labels and artists, I think they will find that difficult to enforce as there will already be contracts in place which set the royalty rate for an artist for streaming revenue. It should be up to the artist to negotiate a better rate when they sign. If they haven't they are either stupid or badly advised.

 

MPs with good intentions that clearly have no idea how things work in practice.

[Al Krow]

That does look super interesting. But the date on the article (15 July 2021) is more than 12 months ago, so I think it's already been buried with nothing coming of it?

[Mykesbass]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

Slips 50/50 between between who? There are at least 3 parties involved - the streaming service, the record label and the artist, so straight away this doesn't work.

 

If the MPs mean a 50/50 split between record labels and artists, I think they will find that difficult to enforce as there will already be contracts in place which set the royalty rate for an artist for streaming revenue. It should be up to the artist to negotiate a better rate when they sign. If they haven't they are either stupid or badly advised.

 

MPs with good intentions that clearly have no idea how things work in practice.

Which is why streaming needs to be treated as third party income, treated differently from the royalty rate. Any music lawyers not negotiating this are way behind the times.

[Newfoundfreedom]

Can't wait to receive the 50%  payout for my 600 Spotify streams!

 

I've been looking at villas on the coast.

[BigRedX]

Just now, Newfoundfreedom said:

Can't wait to receive the 50%  payout for my 600 Spotify streams!

 

I've been looking at villas on the coast.

 

If you actually have music up on Spotify and you haven't signed a bad record contract them you should be getting at least 90% of the artist share (your aggregator will take the rest). 

 

Of course if you only have 600 streams you need to do more promotion. 

[Daz39]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Slips 50/50 between between who? There are at least 3 parties involved - the streaming service, the record label and the artist, so straight away this doesn't work.

 

If the MPs mean a 50/50 split between record labels and artists, I think they will find that difficult to enforce as there will already be contracts in place which set the royalty rate for an artist for streaming revenue. It should be up to the artist to negotiate a better rate when they sign. If they haven't they are either stupid or badly advised.

 

MPs with good intentions that clearly have no idea how things work in practice.

Well - I imagine it would be net of the streaming services charge. Same way publishing royalty works in the small press world.

Because no band ever has been pressured into an unequal contract...

Leaving them to negotiate sounds like free market capitalism at its worst.

[BigRedX]

4 minutes ago, Daz39 said:

Well - I imagine it would be net of the streaming services charge. Same way publishing royalty works in the small press world.

Because no band ever has been pressured into an unequal contract...

Leaving them to negotiate sounds like free market capitalism at its worst.

 

But what about those bands who are already doing nicely out of streaming royalties without a record deal?

 

I certainly wouldn't want mine cut from 90% to 50% without guarantees that the additional 40% would be considerably more than made up in additional streams.

 

And any artist can just say "no", and any artist that has signed a poor royalty rate for streaming in the last 5 years only has themselves to blame.

[Daz39]

11 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

But what about those bands who are already doing nicely out of streaming royalties without a record deal?

 

I certainly wouldn't want mine cut from 90% to 50% without guarantees that the additional 40% would be considerably more than made up in additional streams.

 

And any artist can just say "no", and any artist that has signed a poor royalty rate for streaming in the last 5 years only has themselves to blame.

If you have a contract that gets you more, you wouldn't change it. 

No - an artist, in practice, can not always just say no. That's a very strange perception of reality you have. 

[BigRedX]

28 minutes ago, Daz39 said:

No - an artist, in practice, can not always just say no. That's a very strange perception of reality you have. 

 

Yes they can. I've done it myself in the past and walked away from a very poor record deal. You get proper legal advice and weigh up whether the loss of royalties due to the label taking their cut is worth the potential overall increase and make a decision.

 

It's no longer the 60s and I don't think musicians are being dangled by their ankles from tall buildings in order to get them to sign. 

[steve-bbb]

Theyll call for it but just like all their election promises it will never happen

[BigRedX]

18 minutes ago, steve-bbb said:

Theyll call for it but just like all their election promises it will never happen

 

They can call all they like but I can see how it would be enforceable.