diff --git "a/digitaldollar_fullreport.json" "b/digitaldollar_fullreport.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/digitaldollar_fullreport.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+{
+    "filename": "digitaldollar_fullreport",
+    "department": "Marketing", "Manager",
+    "cleaned_text": "dissecting digital dollar part one streaming services licensed challenges artists facedissecting digital dollar published music managers forum produced cmu insightswritten chris cookeprinted headley brothers ashford music managers forum big thank many people contributed insight information research helped produce report including amanda harcourt andy edwards andy malt ben mcewen brian message cliff fluet eric mackay fiona mcgugan horace trubridge indy vidyalankara james barton jane dyball john simson jon webster lee morrison maria forte nick yule nigel dewar gibb perry resnick randy grimmett richard kirstein sophie goossens tahir basheer tom frederikse part one dissecting digital dollar sets instigate inform debate amongst artist management wider music community part two report discussions follow mmf online details report themmfnet mmfuk cmuinsightscom cmucmu dissecting digital dollar page introduction dissecting digital dollar part one streaming services licensed challenges artists face section one executive summary section two music rights controls section three ownership royalties section four performer rights er section five monetising music rights digital section six digital licensing section seven manager survey section eight issues introduction page dissecting digital dollar music managers forum music managers forum represents artist managers uk turn represent successful acts planet since inception mmf worked hard educate inform represent uk managers well offering network members share experiences opportunities information work continues mmf also focusing providing collective voice time change giving real meaningful value members artists helping unlock investment opening new markets encouraging fair transparent business environment digital age cmu insights cmu service provider music industry best known media free daily news bulletin cmu daily premium services cmu digest cmu trends report cmu insights provides training consultancy music companies companies working music includes regular seminars events programme cmu insights great escape uks biggest music business conference heart europes leading festival new music cmu also runs education programme new talent called cmudiy providing workshops online resources aspiring artists songwriters music entrepreneurs author chris cooke cofounded cmu continues contribute title business editor written music business daily almost fifteen years leading expert sector often comments developments media notably bbc degrees english law particular expert music rights closely documented evolution digital music chris also heads cmu owner cm unlimited publishes cultural recommendations service thisweek london edinburgh festival magazine threeweeks edinburgh helps run award winning pr training charity taylor bennett foundation enabling ethnic diversity communications industry cohosts cmu tw podcasts recently debuted first spoken word show chris cookes free speech dissecting digital dollar page executive summary various reasons confusion complicated nature streaming deals record industry music publishers always license way way services licensed royalties processed vary country country streaming deals ultimately revenue share arrangements making exact payments per usage less predictable specifics many streaming deals secret due nondisclosure agreements key contracts led development new licensing arrangements often done poor job communicating stakeholders evolving new licensing models record companies music publishers collective management organisations navigate copyright laws music industry conventions specifically developed digital distribution recorded content mind assumptions made perhaps hindsight require consideration either lawmakers courts wider music community least unified approach across industry across world section one executive summary rise digital created challenges opportunities music industry challenges around piracy widely documented working legitimate digital services also challenging music rights owners especially seen shift downloads streams licensing platforms requires new approach business last decade music rights sector busy evolving new licensing models new industry standards starting emerge however issues remain debate whether fundamentals specifics new business models best possible solutions whether created beneficial stakeholders music community others even standards emerging remains much confusion wider music community exactly streaming services licensed calculated digital service providers must pay money processed shared music rights industry executive summary page dissecting digital dollar dissecting digital dollar order inform debate uks music managers forum commissioned report review explain music rights exploited past digital licensing evolved issues need tackled spoke indepth leading practitioners across music digital legal sectors surveyed artist managers five markets represent artists signed three major music companies independent labels way music rights work varies around world partly differences copyright law partly different practices conventions evolved market variation challenge digital sector many services aspire truly global also poses challenges explaining music copyright works general level different rules technicalities terminology may apply one country significant differences emphasis called common law jurisdictions like uk us civil law systems like france spain although tried market neutral describing basics music copyright report arguably starting common law possibly uk perspective try clear key differences exist different systems music rights digital platforms works copyright provides creators controls exploited profit copyright ultimately providing creators certain controls create either point principle andor encourage enable creativity allowing creators business partners exploit controls profit exactly controls copyright owner enjoys varies country country commonly include exclusive right make distribute copies creative work adapt work rent communicate perform public copyright makes money third parties wish exploit one controls third party must get permission licence copyright owner licensor usually charge licensee fee grant permission core music rights music industry controls exploits various kinds intellectual property though core music rights separate copyrights songs lyrics composition sound recordings civil law systems might refer separate author neighbouring rights copyright law music industry routinely treat two kinds copyright differently within business music publishers generally control song dissecting digital dollar page executive summary copyrights controls exploiting burn copy track onto cd exploiting reproduction control song recording copyright music publishers call mechanical right perform song gig exploiting public performance control song copyright play track radio exploiting communication control song recording copyright synchronise track tv show exploiting reproduction control song recording copyright actually synchronise track communication control song recording copyright tv show broadcast download stream track exploiting reproduction control communication control probably specific making available control song recording copyright vary country country example us reproduction rights licence required downloads performing rights licence required personalised radio services executive summary page dissecting digital dollar copyrights record companies control recording rights important anyone wishing license recording song means need separate deals record companies music publishers labels publishers may different ways deal licensing process differ depending usage labels publishers go licensing one licensee often depend aforementioned controls said licensee wishes exploit example wish exploit reproduction distribution controls might called reproduction mechanical rights may licensed different way wish exploit performance communication controls might called performing neighbouring rights different use term neighbouring rights sometimes rights owners license collectively opposed individual rights owners licensees direct relationship happens labels publishers appoint collective management organisation cmo license behalf may done practical reasons copyright law instigates compulsory license meaning rights owner cannot refuse license certain scenario even though licensees still obliged pay royalties collective licensing usually subject extra regulation statutory body court ultimately empowered set royalty rates main exceptions example sync labels commonly license reproduction rights directly performing rights collectively whereas publishers often license sets rights cmos possibly different cmos uk mcps prs respectively important know controls copyright unlike kinds intellectual property copyright usually registered statutory authority make identifying owners tricky copyright law usually defines default presumed owners new works though rules vary country country different songs recordings default owners also usually transfer ownership least control another party usually return money called assignment licensing agreements result whatever default ownership rules may say songs either owned least controlled music publishers recordings either owned least controlled record companies singer songwriters involved creating songs recordings usually separate deals separate companies covering respective song recording rights though important distinction make comes songs songwriter may actually directly appoint cmo control elements copyright music publisher control elements uk songwriter assigns performing rights prs rights publisher publisher contractual right share performing rights revenue actually control element copyright dissecting digital dollar page executive summary controls different music rights label sends artists studio write record new music song recording created song copyright recording copyright owns thisby default usually songwriter songwriters though often transfer ownership andor control parties owns thisdefault owner varies according local copyright law could label artist though artist often transfer ownership andor control another party rights copyright provides number controls songwriter commonly transfers controls collective management organisation controls publisher uk performing rights cmo rights publisherwhat rights copyright provides number controls usually transferred record label however artists separate right equitable remuneration er performing rights revenue cannot usually transferred label cmo passes income publisher songwriterpublisher pays royalty songwriter according publishing contractlabel pays royalty featured artist according record contractcmo passes performer er income featured artist sessions musiciansperforming rights song copyrightother elements song copyrightall elements recording copyrightartists er right performing rights income cmo prs ukmusic publisherrecord label artists cmo ppl uk publisher either licenses direct via cmo mcps ukcmo handles licensinglabel either licenses direct via cmo ppl ukcmo collects performer er default ownership equitable remuneration rules way different elements song right split varies country country course artists songwriters dont create sent studio label executive summary page dissecting digital dollar finally copyrights coowned particularly common song copyrights collaboration common songwriting song coowned licensee usually need permission every stakeholder make use work creator performer rights artists songwriters often assign good copyright recordings songs record labels music publishers especially true new talent need corporate partners make risky investments careers form artistic development content production marketing cash advances artists songwriters still retain rights relation recordings songs record publishing contracts particular right share revenue generated work maybe also rights consultation approval veto addition contractual rights artists songwriters may also enjoy rights directly copyright law commonly called moral performer rights recording artists common performer rights relate approvals performer equitable remuneration approval must usually gained record artists performance exploit recording artists may also often enjoy automatic ie noncontractual nonwaivable right share certain though revenue streams associated recordings often performing rights income licensees aware additional creator performer rights coexist actual copyright likely controlled corporate entity digital licensing physical product domain record company exploited sound recording copyright licensed rights exploit accompanying song copyright relevant music publisher publishers usually via collective licensing system cd provided retailer rights ready exceptions digital domain download stores streaming services need separate licensing relationships record companies music publishers andor respective cmos labels generally license online radio directly though personalised radio services may also licensed cmo territories especially us compulsory licence applies publishers license digital services collectively though big publishers sometimes license anglo american repertoire directly albeit via joint venture vehicles cmos extra complication downloads streams exploit reproduction rights performing rights copyright publishing side important two elements copyright often licensed separately remember uk prs controls performing right publisher reproduction right outside us publishers usually try provide digital services combined rights licenses means reproduction performing rights dissecting digital dollar page executive summary controlled different entities two entities need work together example publishers license digital direct must partnership cmos control performing rights recordings side label able license elements copyright though convention performer equitable remuneration often due performing rights income reproduction rights income making fact elements copyright exploited relevant except labels argue specific separate performing right first introduced mid called making available right digital platforms actually exploit exempt performer equitable remuneration artists agree streaming deal streaming services licensed less way deal rights owner streaming platform ultimately revenue share arrangement month streaming service works percentage overall consumption came one label publishers catalogue allocates percentage overall advertising andor subscription revenue sales tax rights owner pays cut based preexisting revenue share arrangement every deal different usually secret though labels generally see revenue allocated catalogue whereas publishers see overall streaming service aims retain addition core revenue share arrangement rights owners usually seek minimise risk streaming service pay minimum rates example per play guaranteed certain income based consumption oblivious streaming services revenues rights owners also often demand upfront advances streaming services labels may seek equity start services kickbacks money flow payment streaming royalties complex streaming services generally assume whichever label provided track owns copyright pays label share revenue minimum guarantee whichever higher label usually obliged share income artist subject terms said artists record deal labels pay artists share digital income physical income maybe percent much debate whether fair artists predigital record contracts argue incorrect interpretation original agreements every record deal different usually artists receive minority cut income commonly labels initial ongoing costs paid exact terms set record contract confusion artist management community ongoing costs many labels deducting digital income publishing side streaming service usually know publisher publishers rights one song therefore streaming service reports consumption licensor rights owner calculates due invoices streaming service needs ensure isnt executive summary page dissecting digital dollar invoiced twice song two licensors arent claiming song publishing sector paid money needs split performing reproduction rights happens next depends country uk performing rights income goes prs pays songwriter publisher reproduction rights income goes publisher sometimes via mcps pay share songwriter according publishing contract issues interviews conducted part research coupled survey artist management community identified seven key issues music industry must address division streaming revenue division streaming income stakeholders fair includes split streaming services music community recording song rights reproduction performing rights artist label performer equitable remuneration making available performer rights many countries say artists due equitable remuneration performing rights exploited however mentioned labels argue digital services exploit specific separate performing right called making available right equitable remuneration due income artists agree acts pres record contacts argue labels cannot exploit right anyway without specific approval digital deals nda culture labels publishers cmos created templates streaming service deals revenue share arrangements minimum guarantees advances equity kickbacks artists managers often kept dark arrangements rarely consulted merits component deal many feel artists unfairly excluded profits generated advances equity benefits offered corporate rights owners safe harbours optout services streaming services carry content provided label partners others including youtube soundcloud allow users upload content rights owners request content removed allow remain promotional purposes cases youtube choose monetise platform services rely called safe harbours us european law avoid liability copyright infringement hosting unlicensed material users uploaded question whether safe harbours designed purpose whether existence optout streaming services kind distorting wider digital music market data music industry process unprecedented amounts data revenues royalties increasingly based consumption rather sales lack decent copyright ownership data also hinders efficiency especially publishing side almost dissecting digital dollar page executive summary certainly big data solutions problems challenge lead activity labels publishers cmos share crucial copyright ownership data control collective licensing labels license digital services directly publishers often use cmos various reasons artists songwriters often prefer money go cmos rather labels publishers though argument always efficient way process revenue data either way artists songwriters often feel excluded debate pros cons collective licensing adapting new business models one biggest challenges everyone music community simply adapting new way business sustained listening rather first week sales matter successful tracks albums deliver revenues longer period time rather via shortterm spike adapting new way business arguably fact life though stakeholders may shielded others short term negative impact questions said aim report inform initiate debate seven issues identified pose fifteen key questions wider music industry discuss consider answer digital income split music industry digital platforms streaming revenues paid music industry monies split two copyrights ie recordings songs downloads streams exploit reproduction communication controls copyright ie reproduction performing rights income allocated two elements copyright record label owns copyright sound recording pays royalty featured artist terms record contract royalty label pay downloads streams compared cds kind digital services exploit conventional performing rights kind exploit specific making available right copyright law specific point performer equitable remuneration apply streaming services including exploiting making available right record labels need specific making available waiver artists exploiting recordings digitally record companies music publishers demand equity digital startups share profits subsequent share sale artists songwriters terms record companies music publishers demand large advances executive summary page dissecting digital dollar new digital services share breakage unallocated advances artists songwriters terms record companies music publishers demand kickbacks new digital services share benefits artists terms right beneficiaries copyright allowed know songs recordings monetised new performer right ensure information made available artists songwriters representatives safe harbours european american law revised companies like youtube soundcloud cannot benefit however good takedown systems may may music rights industry rising challenge processing usage data royalty payments streaming services data demands artists songwriters making labels publishers cmos central database copyright ownership ultimately required streaming services best licensed direct collective management organisations direct best solution societies actually control elements copyright artists songwriters actually told solutions adopted biggest challenge music industry simply adapting new business model pays based consumption rather sales much longer time period artists songwriters better adapt dissecting digital dollar page music rights controls copyright ultimately providing creators certain controls create either point principle andor encourage enable creativity allowing creators business partners exploit controls profit key music rights music industry owns exploits two distinct sets copyright copyright songs lyrics musical compositions known author rights civil law systems generally referred publishing rights within music industry copyright sound recordings known neighbouring rights many civil law systems generally referred recording master rights music business distinction important various reasons countries copyright law apply different rules publishing rights recording rights example us fm radio stations must secure licences pay royalties publishing rights owners need pay similar royalties recording rights owners section two music rights controls publishing rights songwriters composers music publishers rights administrators performing rights cmos reproduction rights cmosintroducing music rights sector recording rights artists record companies distributors label cmos artist cmos music publishing sector record industry music industry controls plenty kinds intellectual property including audiovisual artistic literary works core music rights report focus us record industry currently lobbying change move line rest worldmusic rights controls page dissecting digital dollar even case music industry treat publishing rights recording rights differently often license different ways especially true comes called collective licensing whilst many music rights businesses deal publishing recording rights usually separate autonomous companies anyone wishing make use recordings songs need deal entities whilst many artists involved creation songs recordings often work different companies exploit two sets rights negotiate separate publishing record deals two completely separate businesses convention key elements two deals usually differ publishing deals tend generous songwriters record deals artists reasons explain music rights industry therefore split two music publishing industry controlling exploiting song copyrights record industry controlling exploiting recording copyrights copyright controls copyright law provides rights owners number controls piece content used copyright law usually refer controls controls uk copyright law calls acts restricted copyright terminology varies country country use word control clear neutral term exact list controls also varies around world sometimes differs publishing recording rights uk system lists six distinct controls identified one form another copyright systems follows reproduction control true copy right gives rights owner exclusive right make copies work distribution control provides rights owner exclusive right issue copies work public rental control provides rights owner exclusive right rent lend copies work public adaptation control provides rights owner exclusive right make adaptations work performance control provides rights owner exclusive right perform display work public public usually defined widely cover pretty much anything outside private home car communication control provides rights owner exclusive right communicate work public traditionally means broadcast also covers communication digital channels reproduction control distribution control rental control adaptation control performance control communication control dissecting digital dollar page music rights controls latter sometimes referred specifically separate making available control depending user accesses content music industry reproduction distribution controls similar often grouped together called reproduction rights mechanical rights use former neutral term report within music business term mechanical rights tends associated songs recordings music industry also usually groups together performance communication controls similar calls performing rights neighbouring rights use former neutral term report neighbouring rights increasingly popular phrase record industry term confusing different definition civil law systems mentioned copyright control controls exploited one time important rules set copyright law may differ depending specific control play even isnt case music industry routinely treats manages control set controls differently copyrights make money copyrights make money third parties called licensees want exploit one controls want copy work adapt perform communicate copyright owner exclusive right exploit content ways third party needs seek permission permission usually granted return payment licensees may want exploit one copyright one control one time example third party wants make copy recording song exploiting separate copyrights recording song therefore need secure permission third party wants stream track exploiting reproduction communication controls survey artist managers acts represent involved creation songs recordings copyright designs patents act section though right usually limited rights owner control subsequent resale copies first issued providing additional copying required resell principally applies physical copies copyright law routinely provides certain scenarios permission fact required private copies critical analysis parody usually called copyright exceptions exemptions fair use fair dealing rules vary country countryreproduction control distribution controlreproduction rights performing rightsrental control adaptation control performance control communication controlmusic rights controls page dissecting digital dollar recording song copyrights need ensure right permissions secured direct collective compulsory licences third party wants exploit copyright work must get licence permission copyright owner owners basic level licensee must identify locate rights owners negotiate terms rights owner usually demand form payment return granting licence rights owner usually ask whatever sum money like though assuming seeking deal rights owners constrained market realities licensee realistically afford important licensee specific deal done beyond commercial constraints countries copyright law generally seek particularly regulate directly negotiated deals collective licensing however circumstances music industry chooses license collectively large number rights owners decide instead direct deals every individual licensee put rights one pot appoint standalone organisation license behalf organisations often referred collecting societies performing rights organisations pros collective management organisations cmos generally use latter term cmo agrees terms licensees often whole groups licensees together collects monies due distributes income back rights owners often though always based songs recordings used music industry generally chooses license collectively practical reasons mainly reduce legal administration costs set licensees either large uses lot music perusage perlicence income relatively modest direct licensing would simply impractical unenforceable would likely lead music used without license resulting lost income overall record industry music publishing sector routinely license collectively though separately radio stations clubs jukebox operators public spaces play recorded music publishers also usually license collectively live performance songs public reproduction distribution recordings published songs though precise rules vary cmo cmo territory territory challenging generally copyright ownership registered statutory body international copyright treaties say registration required onestopshop copyright ownership database provided music industry though always rights owner may simply wish deal likely artist songwriter involved creating recording song may contractual veto right stops corporate rights owner entering certain kind deal without permission artist songwriter may exercise veto ethical reputational reasons record companies music publishers appoint separate cmos even though many licensees need exploit sets rights countries record industry publishing sector societies may offer joint licensees though still exception rather norm dissecting digital dollar page music rights controls regulation collective licensing legislators generally support collective licensing despite market power arguably gives cmos convenience provides potential licensee nevertheless approach create competition law concerns rights owners license one licensee nowhere else go secure licence could potentially lead anticompetitive behaviour reason collective licensing usually subject regulation usually includes provisions licensing negotiations escalated copyright tribunal similar authority power rule royalty disputes therefore ultimately set rates licensee must pay collective licensing rules vary country country compulsory licenses countries copyright law instigates number compulsory licences specific scenarios rights owners obliged issue license example rights owners often obliged license radio stations via compulsory licence record labels us obliged copyright law license personalised radio services pandora licences apply rights owners still due payment use content lose right walk away deal negotiations obviously weakens negotiating hand somewhat rights owners usually provide compulsory licences collective licensing system often obliged law copyright courts statutory bodies ultimately setting rates ownership royal ties page dissecting digital dollar unlike forms intellectual property copyrights usually registered statutory authority rather copyright crystallises work fixed material form providing certain criteria met copyright law provides rules guidance default presumed owners may ie work fixed copyright crystallises default owns copyright rules vary country country according kind copyright defaul ownership rules generally lyrics musical compositions default owners lyricist composer ie creator author cowritten works coowned parties though creators decide copyright split contributor main exception work created employee part job description often called work hire us case employer may default copyright owner depending local rules sound recordings default ownership rules vary copyright system copyright system countries individual company funds ie pays recording rather performers appear default owner resulting copyright funders usually record labels often referred copyright law producer shouldnt confused studio producers also worth noting performers default owners coowners recording rights statutory provisions work hire clauses within contracts may take effect making employer ie label default owner assignment although law provides default ownership rules default owner usually transfer ownership copyrights existing future parties usually return money many systems allow full transfer ownership usually called assignment even possible germany copyrights licensed entirety perpetuity third party practically amounts thing record companies music publishers sign new talent inevitably require sort upfront investment eg advance artist development marketing real guarantee return corporate entities usually seek outright ownership copyrights created first contract case publishing outright ownership least elements copyright say ownership controls outlined revenue share others section three ownership royalties dissecting digital dollar page ownership royal ties resulting agreement structured way make label publisher actual de facto rights owner according copyright law local jurisdiction course record company may default owner sound recording copyrights statute anyway agreements written avoid ambiguity copyrights dont last forever usually pretty long terms years release recordings life creator plus years songs new talent record deals label usually want ownership life copyright publishing contracts though rights may revert songwriter point law us agreement elsewhere usually significant period time artist songwriter assigns rights may also successful able renegotiate contracts later date giving ownership coownership copyrights created though usually given first deal contracts contractual rights artists songwriters although artists songwriters routinely assign therefore give copyright works created record companies music publishers likely retain certain contractual rights relation works set assignment contract similar worth mentioning sound recordings side called featured artists routinely retain rights nature contract session musicians appear recordings often paid set fee time future involvement exploitation work featured artists session musicians still enjoy performer rights law section four generally former also benefit contractual rights discuss studio producers often get royalty recordings produce rights may limited royalties important contractual rights relate royalties ie artist songwriters right share money generated exploitation copyrights helped create statutory commercial copyright registries exist countries logging works usually voluntary us certain remedies available court unregistered works though mainly applies domestic rather foreign works transcribed recorded filmed etc though two people collaborate one writing lyrics writing musical composition copyright systems uk outright respective copyright ie copyright lyrics separate copyright composition contribute lyrics score manner whereby individual contributions cannot separately identified would coown copyrights case copyright law andor case law normally provide definition constitutes employee context andor work hire applies may significant differences though happens licensee goes liquidation though day today corporate licensee acts owns copyright multiple creators copyright term usually years last surviving collaborator dies similar exclusive licence perpetuity featured artists musicians whose name names one recording released opposed session musicians simply credited small print record labels generally sign record deals featured artistsownership royal ties page dissecting digital dollar record publishing contract usually state featured artists songwriters must receive share revenue generated work payments calculated paid percentage artist songwriter receives vary contract contract within contract often vary according revenue generated label publisher also usually right recoup often exclusively artists share revenue upfront costs includes advances paid income shared often right deduct ongoing costs revenues royalties due artist songwriter paid extra points note firstly newer record deals may also give label cut revenue generated artist beyond sound recordings live activity merchandise example often called degree deals income streams label shares referred ancillary revenues nonrecorded income contract needs state whether ancillary revenues count towards labels unrecouped costs secondly publishing elements copyright likely allocated actually assigned cmo usually pay songwriter share subsequent revenue directly often means songwriter receives share income day one ie payment subject recoupment publisher recoup investment revenue streams allocated cmo outside us usually direct contract songwriter cmo covering elements copyright assigned society songwriters publishing contract two things assigns elements copyright allocated cmo publisher gives publisher simple contractual right share revenue generated elements cmo controls rights cmo actually controls songwriters paid whether payments subject recoupment varies according operating mandate internal rules society every contract different established artists songwriters usually secure better deals new talent though general rule record contracts tipped labels favour allowing keep majority revenues generated whereas publishing contracts likely favourable songwriter record labels would justify arguing usually take much bigger financial risk publisher especially working new artists worth noting calculation payment royalties labels publishers common cause tension music rights companies artists songwriters work especially artists stopped working label creating new content still receiving royalties past assignment deals many artists believe business partners twisting rules playing system actively inactivity reduce royalties pay label longer requires dissecting digital dollar page ownership royal ties artist create promote new content arguably little incentive interpret fulfill contractual obligations way favours artists shareholders record publishing contracts usually provide artists songwriters right audit label publisher real terms many artists cannot afford enforce right effectively contractual ambiguities many artists nervous pursuing expensive litigation given big rights owners nearly always better resourced fight legal battles artist well resourced labels publishers may agree secret deals avoid test cases court resulting precedent vetoes contractual rights addition royalties record publishing contracts may give talent rights includes rights consultation approval might amount veto provide artists songwriters certain controls content exploited veto right usually requires label publisher get specific approval artist songwriter allowing work used specific scenarios eg advert new digital platform vetoes vary contract contract artists absolute discretion subject artist reasonable established artists negotiate rights deals distribution administration deals course songwriters artists choose retain ownership copyrights songs recordings create many though new talent may struggle find label publisher willing pay cash advance invest artist development content production marketing activities without receiving copyright assignment return equivalent local copyright law artists songwriters require less upfront investment engage services label publisher retaining copyright ownership traditionally known record industry distribution deals music publishing sector administration deals may called licensing services deal many labels publishers provide creative administrative distribution marketing services fee revenue share basis without assignment risk minimised indeed many labels separate divisions work artists basis addition big growth area music rights sector label services domain say standalone companies provide rights management distribution andor marketing services sometimes labels publishers increasingly directly artists songwriters byproduct artists songwriters especially established talent may retain ownership copyrights usually appoint label publisher andor service provider manage represent rights said companies mandated act owned copyrights deal artist songwriter expires ownership royal ties page dissecting digital dollar role collective management organisations aforementioned cmos also act rights owners sometimes actually times agents explained cmos usually involved music industry decides licence collectively rather via direct deals recordings v publishing rights one country record music publishing industries appoint one cmos represent interests collective licensing scenarios record companies music publishers formed separate cmos meaning licensees making use recordings songs usually need seek separate licences least two societies performing v reproduction rights meanwhile publishing sector distinction often made collective licensing reproduction rights collective licensing performing rights autonomous divisions societies totally separate cmos appointed set rights cmos although cmos basically providing services members negotiating deals analysing data distributing revenue status structure membership power societies varies country country record industry music publishing sector key differentiator aforementioned convention song rights domain whereby songwriters outside us actually allocate elements copyrights society rather publisher occurs songwriter giving cmo exclusive global right represent elements copyrights publisher simply beneficiary rights means two things first cmos simply agents corporate rights owners negotiate deals wherever collective licensing employed actually control rights represent second songwriters publishers members society cmo governed board made songwriter publisher members facts arguably make cmos powerful aside uk italy songwriters composers actually constitute majority board cmos european union nevertheless many songwriters believe publishers influence board level true may simply due publisher board members greater business expertise either way society must representative seen representative songwriter publisher members cmos representing song rights structured way us societies operate differently countries reproduction rights managed separate cmos may also differ example uk prs represents performing rights structured described mcps represents reproduction rights board consists mainly publishers acts agent members actual copyright owner record industry record companies control performing reproduction rights labels cmos dissecting digital dollar page ownership royal ties usually act simple agents corporate rights owners wherever collective licensing applies artists normally members societies though artist community country usually cmo collect revenue associated performer rights section four uk us societies represent labels ppl soundexchange respectively also administer performer rights income perhaps important difference cmos assigned rights versus act agents corporate rights owners labels publishers could theory unilaterally withdraw repertoires latter compulsory licences apply course subject societys rules whereas publishers could never unilaterally withdraw cmos assigned rights songwriters collective licensing worldwide collective licensing applies rights owners traditionally appoint local cmos issue licenses individuals companies operating home territory cmos commonly provide licensees blanket licence allows make use songs recordings societys repertoire either fixedfeeperusage revenue share basis participation blanket licences often compulsory society members course prolific licensees likely require access domestic repertoire reciprocal agreements made cmos around world meaning one market local society empowered license songs recordings globe revenues passed onto foreign societies songs recordings repertoire exploited licensee arrangement gives users operating blanket licence permission use vast catalogue songs recordings vast fact even though gaps repertoire rights owner hasnt affiliated society reciprocal agreements two countries yet made many licensees assume licence allows legally use song recording protected copyright traditionally reciprocal agreements usually allowed cmo license repertoire societies home territory society license something nearing global catalogue home country license repertoire worldwide expressly empowered members usually means licensee operating multiple territories must seek separate licences country via local society rights controls required proven challenging digital era many licensees seek operate multiple countries publishing sectors cmos sought provide multiterritory licenses partly response licensee demand europe partly accommodate european commission says societies within european union compete members licensees order comply competition law cmo sources indicate plus panterritorial music services currently licensed across european borders meanwhile reciprocal agreements cmo licensing conventions continue evolveownership royal ties page dissecting digital dollar complexity flexibility copyright law usually seek regulate specifics assignment licensing agreements ownership control individual copyrights divided transferred flexibility good thing results complexity artist songwriter rights owner may assign license copyrights different entities different countries may assign license rights set period time rather full copyright term may assign element copyright control separately different parties rights owners appoint cmos middle men licensing scenarios continue deal direct others entities acquire copyrights usually liberty sell parties line course coownership copyright particularly important song copyrights collaboration common songwriting collaborating creators publishers cmos share copyrights create law doesnt dictate split ownership might instead agreed participating parties one central repository agreements documented may disagreements regarding agreed splits fact data dilemma finding accurate comprehensive data detailing owns controls copyright works significant issue many variables countries formal registration rights numerous companies organisations especially cmos databases recording owns song recording copyrights databases publicly available one database lists every song recording information especially relation splits coowned works may differ one database another central authority deal conflicts efforts music publishing sector form single global repertoire database collapsed last year even succeeded database would covered song copyrights would linked record industrys databases collective licensing regulations individual cmo rules may limit rights owners abilities opt collective dealing though generally flexibility across wider copyright dissecting digital dollar page performer rights equitable remuneration section four performer rights equitable remuneration well providing rights owners series controls content utilised distributed copyright law also often gives creators performers certain additional concurrent controls works help create even especially claim actual copyright works controls often called moral rights performer rights extent positioning rights varies greatly country country though key consideration whether waived record publishing contract waived corporate rights owners usually insist may make rights ineffective real terms evolution performer rights digital era particularly interesting area countries two main sets performer rights exist originate rome convention apply artists participate sound recording including featured artists session musicians cases studio producer depending involvement terminology vary country country refer two sets rights performer approvals performer equitable remuneration performer er performer approvals performers enjoy certain controls relation sound recordings initial fixation recording subsequent exploitation copyright owner third parties controls usually similar identical controls enjoyed actual copyright owner defined section two though also include initial fixation control ie right make recording performance real terms controls take form approvals copyright owner must secure approval performers cases secure assignment performer right artist make subsequently exploit recording approvals assignments usually gained featured artists record contracts session musicians casebycase basis approval sought record company say right make recording performance subsequently exploit even clearly copyright owner according default ownership rules performer er performers also usually right equitable remuneration certain specific exploitations recordings commonly exploitation performing rights ie public performance communication controls course artists may due share income generated performer rights equitable remuneration page dissecting digital dollar recordings contract anyway performer right exists beyond contractual arrangement musician label crucially right usually non waivable unassignable rights owner cannot demand artists waive remuneration right contract whenever recording exploited way subject performer er artist must remunerated usually licensees responsibility ensure remuneration negotiated paid though uk statutory responsibility lies copyright owner recording copyright law often silent equitable remuneration actually means though countries label artist communities agreed income generated exploitation performing rights sound recordings split copyright owners performers remuneration deemed equitable countries artist community establishes cmo cmos featured artists session musicians may organisations jointly labels cmo collects performing rights revenue licensees distributes money members usually prorata based usage uk ppl although owned labels collects distributes performing rights income labels artists artists become performer members society paid share directly true us featured artists receive equitable remuneration income generated soundexchange directly body though session musicians receive cut via middlemen organisations dissecting digital dollar page monetising music rights digital section five monetising music rights digital physical recordings latter part twentieth century single biggest revenue generator music industry sale physical copies sound recordings whether pressed vinyl cassette cd niche formats selling physical copies way record companies main directly exploiting reproduction rights sound recording copyrights labels also license others content mainly compilations samplebased tracks though direct exploitation copyright prevalent labels usually copyright songs embodied within recordings exploiting reproduction rights another copyright owner usually publisher perhaps cmo therefore need secure reproduction rights licence would usually called mechanical rights licence straight cover versions published songs usually provided collective licensing system industrystandard rates compulsory licence applies possibly statutory rate us recording rights record label exploits copyright controlspublishing rights publisher appoints cmo manage controlslabel gets licence pays revenue share cmo label pays revenue share featured artist according contractcmo either pays income minus commission publisher pays revenue share songwriters according contract pays split income direct publisher songwriter depending cmo conventionslicensing royalties cdmonetising music rights digital page dissecting digital dollar labels take risk producing pressing distributing marketing physical releases generally accepted keep majority revenue generated publisher usually receiving less wholesale price record important note physical market one licensee record company label exploits sound recording copyright licenses song copyright finished product record therefore provided distributor retailer rights ready need worry copyright responsibility record company receives retailer wholesale price record sold account publishing sectors mechanical rights cmo royalties label needs pay royalty featured artist beneficiaries according terms artists record contract every record contract different though average artist average record contract would probably expect see record sales income though may calculated various costs deducted monies received label songwriter paid label accounted paid publishing sectors cmo varies country country continental europe money paid label cmo possibly depending contract writer publisher would directly distributed songwriter possibly subject recoupment elsewhere monies paid label would distributed publisher would share income songwriters according contract broadcasting live performance key revenue stream pre digital music rights sector especially music publishers income generated sale licenses companies individuals though mainly companies wanted perform communicate songs recordings broadcasters concert promoters big clients though individual business playing performing music public needs licence noted area record industry publishing sector relied heavily collective licensing rights owners appointing cmos issue licences collect royalties passed minus admin fees labels publishers songwriters artists based theory least often works played licensees regard song copyright performing reproduction rights often split principally cmos control former operate domain licensees primarily looking exploit either performance communication control though licensee also needs make copy recording playing radio station needs copy tracks server reproduction rights cmo may also issue licence recording song communicated performed obviously live performance song recording exploited owner song copyright earns royalties specific digital performing right later dissecting digital dollar page monetising music rights digital cmos charge broadcast performance licences varies according usage feeperlicence feeperplay annuallumpsum revenue share arrangements regularly employed lucrative licensees including commercial broadcasters concert promoters usually revenue share arrangements rights owners benefit licensees business grows royalties unlike record sales broadcast performance income often split equally two sets music rights money allocated recording song copyrights must split labels publishers artists songwriters publishing side convention cmo commonly pay direct publisher direct songwriter recordings side performer er often applies convention income goes labels via cmo artists via society societies mentioned uk ppl handles label artist share means broadcast performance revenue one area income often less split four ways labels publishers artists songwriters important exception us federal law general performance communication control part sound recording copyright result deal record industry radio sector keen reduce royalty payments labels first lobbied congress radio station needs licence cover song copyright sound recording copyright performer rightslicensing royalties amfm radio recording rights labels license via cmopublishing rights songwriters publishers license via cmo artists license via cmo cmo pays label minus commissioncmo pays featured artists sessions musicians minus commissioncmo pays publisher minus commission publisher may pass additional cut songwriter depending publishing contractcmo pays songwriter minus commission uk labels artists use cmo ie pplmonetising music rights digital page dissecting digital dollar federal sound recording copyright late based argument radio important promotional channel record companies labels actually calling general performing right pretty much ever since far without success meaning labels artists earn nothing recordings played amfm radio public spaces within us owners song copyrights enjoy general performance control however license broadcasters concert promoters users music way counterparts elsewhere world aside federal copyright law applies sound recordings released since older recordings protected statelevel copyright law copyright systems generally unclear whether performance communication controls exist sound recordings though recent court rulings california new york suggest states least even though label ever exploited controls terrestrial radio similar date court rulings upheld could result bizarre situation pre sound recordings enjoy copyright protection post recordings us copyright office recently proposed federal law extended sound recordings still copyright overcome idiosyncrasy though record industry would normally support harmonisation case licensing royalties amfm radio us campaign currently focused proposed fair play fair pay act radio station needs licence cover song copyrightrecording rightspublishing rights songwriters publishers license via cmos income artists record labelscmo pays songwriter minus commissioncmo pays publisher minus commission publisher may pass additional cut songwriter depending publishing contract dissecting digital dollar page monetising music rights digital might actually reduce rights unless general performance control federal level synchronisation third predigital revenue stream note sync film tv advert video game producers wish synchronise existing songs andor recordings moving images broadcast performance traditionally bigger deal revenue stream publishers labels though record industry stepped efforts sync market considerably since cd sales peaked late obviously sync licensee must secure licenses rights owners stake song andor recording wish use sync licensing normally begins direct deals though tv sync done via cmos blanket licences countries broadly copyright coowned one rights owner usually refuse license scuppering deal us copyright law one rights owner actually power agree deal providing parties paid share prorata though industry courtesy contractual agreements collaborating songwriters often prevents sync licensee often needs exploit reproduction performing right elements copyright former actually sync audio video constitutes reproduction work latter whenever video recording rights label provides licence recording rights likely referred master rights licenseepublishing rights publishers license reproduction right directly likely referred sync rights licensee label pays revenue share featured artist according contractlicensing royalties directly negotiated sync eg film adverts cmo licenses performing right broadcast screening etc publisher pays royalty songwriter according publishing contractcmo pays songwriter publisher minus commission publisher may pass additional cut songwriter depending publishing contractlicensee needs exploit reproduction performing rightsmonetising music rights digital page dissecting digital dollar played public constitutes either performance communication reproduction rights part deal done first directly publisher label except blanket licences available tv sync sync industry usually refers rights licensed deals synchronisation rights publishing side master rights recordings side performing rights element may also part initial deal commonly publishing side paid via collective licensing system time finished work contains synced music broadcast performed additional royalties due according relevant cmo licence addition fee paid original synchronisation deal additional performing rights royalties apply usually factored negotiations around initial sync deal cuts ways example final product aired screened market collection distribution performing rights income ineffective rights owner may seek premium original deal around reproduction rights sync licensee negotiating directly multiple rights owners theory deal separate subject terms though rights owners often use called favoured nation clauses ensure stakeholders song recording earn fees sync prorata stake copyright clauses mean whichever rights owner deal first could see fees agreed increase licensing royalties tv sync uk recording rights labels license tv sync cmo ppl performer er paid cmo pays label minus commissioncmo pays featured artists sessions musicians minus commissionpublishing rights publishers license tv sync cmos reproduction rights via mcps though managed via prs music performing rights via prs cmo pays share publisher minus commissioncmo pays share songwriter minus commissionlicensee needs exploit reproduction performing rights small number songwriters pubishers actually participate tv sync blanket licence dissecting digital dollar page monetising music rights digital another stakeholder subsequently negotiates favourable terms also often means owners sound recording copyright song copyright see less income sync deal involving recording song unless song much famous recording though theory least publisher generally stronger negotiating hand sync deals much easier licensee rerecord song rewrite royalties value sync deals vary enormously depending budgets licensee prestige songs recordings licensed quite music used deal done publisher label must share income songwriters artists according terms contracts general rule record contracts artists receive significantly bigger share sync record sale income commonly publishing side additional performing rights income subsequently collected cmos split publishers songwriters usual way revenues predigital revenue streams music rights owners include selling licensing sheet music licensing covermount promotional cds licensing music lyrics karaoke services licensing cd rental services including libraries noncommercial licensing eg individuals notforprofits pressing short run cds concerts digital licensing page dissecting digital dollar evolution world wide web growth internet access presented challenges opportunities music industry challenges piracy well documented challenges related legitimate digital platforms license services terms process data royalties challenges yet fully met webcasts first digital services required licences online radio stations ie online services pretty much replicate traditional radio indeed often simulcasts services already going fm webcasts similar broadcasts record industry publishing sector often opted license services collective licensing system ie traditional radio also following broadcast model royalties often split less equally recording publishing rights us exception copyright perspective main difference online traditional radio content delivered digitally broadcaster actually exploits reproduction communication controls copyright whereas traditional broadcast exploits communication control reproduction may take place conventional radio station copies tracks onto servers process needs licensed broadcast involves communication public webcasts publishing rights particularly important publishing side course traditionally reproduction performing rights dealt separately webcasters would rather seek two separate licences one reproduction rights one performing rights often publishing industry sought provide joint licences reproduction performing right cmos separate collaborating us different big performing rights organisations get involved licensing reproduction rights ascap allowed called consent decree regulates operations either way joint licences provided decision needs made monies paid webcaster split reproduction performing right elements copyright may seem like mere technicality given ultimate beneficiaries though countries songwriters receive share performing right income directly cmo cut reproduction right monies via publisher distinction important especially songwriter hasnt recouped publishing contract income coming publisher set section six digital licensing dissecting digital dollar page digital licensing advance rather paid writer webcasting income divided reproduction performing rights varies country country decided industry often via cmos copyright law provides guidance split common split webcasts performing rights reproduction rights though said countries webcasts especially simulcasts fm radio services may treated exploiting performing right example july year bbc decided could longer play songs handful writers members uks reproduction rights society mcps new caching function offline listening within smartphone app meant reproduction rights licence would required suggests webcasting services already offered bbc without caching covered performing rights licence prs webcasts recording rights sound recordings side record labels cmos empowered license reproduction performing elements copyright webcasters technically performer er due performing right element though artists may still receive total income said performer er rules webcasts vary country country key difference sound recordings side us mentioned federal copyright law general performance control sound recording copyright however specific digital performance control added federal law new legislation meaning conventional broadcasters obliged secure licence sound recording rights owners webcasters legislation included compulsory licence noninteractive webcasting services meaning sound recording rights owners obliged license webcasters collective licensing system us record industry existing cmo license traditional broadcasters previously needed one soundexchange set administer compulsory license rates ultimately set americas copyright royalty board worth noting sound recording rights owners obliged license webcasters soundexchange statutory rates licensees opt negotiate deals directly record companies wish rights owners might willing deals webcaster provides marketing benefits addition royalty payments artists paid webcasting domain new law introduced performer er certain circumstances us copyright first time concept hadnt existed america mainly revenue stream performer er customarily paid elsewhere performing rights income sound recordings didnt exist us new law introduced digital performing right said performer er set elsewhere must paid revenue stream webcaster licensed soundexchange technically means label could persuade webcaster license directly could avoid paying digital licensing page dissecting digital dollar performer er meaning could offer webcaster discount earning said labels pursued arrangement major labels informally committed always license webcasters soundexchange labels would still obliged share revenue featured artists contract anyway financial benefits direct deal may significant majors may also aware pr damage could done actively circumvented performer er way final thing note webcasting whereas countries licensing webcasters closely mirrors licensing broadcasters us existing framework traditional broadcast license required music publishers things evolved differently particular publishing sectors cmos generally revenue share arrangement webcasters broadcasters whereas soundexchange often charges perplay fee labels end earning considerably downloads webcasters relatively easy license given many similarities traditional broadcasters first big innovation digital music provided challenges course downloads sold la carte download stores itunes model although many ways itunes music store close real world record store possible digital domain three important differences copyright perspective labels becoming licensing companies publishers licensing retailer instead label making available right consider turn labels become licensing companies downloads labels longer directly exploiting sound recording copyrights reproducing masters instead transferred digital copies recordings onto download stores servers gave download store operator permission give customers permission download therefore reproduce recordings payper download basis labels direct exploitation copyright always primary business following publishers lead becoming first foremost licensing companies b publishers license retailer instead label download market first emerged publishers decided licensing relationships download stores whereas cds label handles song licensing retailer receives finished product rights ready never worry copyright matters three main reasons firstly download stores unlike traditional retailers already licensing game nature relationship labels wasnt big ask licensing relationship publishers secondly many publishers felt theyd receive payment quicker get better sales data liaised directly dissecting digital dollar page digital licensing download store operators rather allowing labels middle men thirdly way publishers could consider new digital business digital business model weigh value song rights business hindsight issues faced today outlined section eight could avoided publishers continued license labels labels provide download stores combined licence called passthrough licence though many publishers still feel licensing digital platforms directly rather via labels better option exceptions principle us compulsory licensing system meant passthrough licence approach adopted download stores emerging markets notably india passthrough licensing agreed publishers logistical reasons c making available control webcast download arguably exploits reproduction right performing right elements copyright specific reproduction control communication control however communication control defined copyright law traditionally related conventional broadcasting easily extended webcasting might apply kinds digital transmission ensure digital communication kind would still restricted copyright perhaps distinguish existing controls covered recording rights record label licenses rights download storepublishing rights label pays revenue share featured artist according contractlicensing royalties downloads publishers license cmos reproduction rights maybe handled separate cmosperforming rights cmo may pay publisher pays royalty songwriter according contract cmo pays share songwriter share publishercmo pays songwriter publisher minus commission publisher may pass additional cut songwriter depending publishing contract publishers license direct shown streaming diagram p us reproduction rights apply downloads licensee needs exploit reproduction performing rights latter technically making available rightdigital licensing page dissecting digital dollar broadcasting rights owners lobbied separate control added copyright law called making available making available right formally introduced world intellectual property organisation treaties european union control two distinct features firstly transmission electronic secondly members public may access place time individually chosen generally treated separate control within music industry usually referred making available right making available could seen subcategory existing communication control formally described uk copyright law since becoming part copyright systems early number questions raised making available notably exactly applies whether labels need specific performer approval exploit right impact making available performer er dealt section eight downloads recording rights outset record industry decided license download stores directly music publishers inititally opted license collectively record industry opted direct licensing mainly la carte download stores generally seen digital equivalent cd market labels always direct control content came physical products publishers licensed cds cmos also itunes initially forced standardised pricing rights owners labels successfully persuaded apple allow variable pricing controlled record company easier manage direct licensing scenario despite licensing game rather directly exploiting copyrights labels generally treat downloads much way cds terms wholesale pricing income processed also revenue shared featured artists even record contracts predate itunes therefore make specific provision download business proven contentious artist community discuss section eight downloads publishing rights webcasting publishers generally provide licences downloads cmos though direct licensing describe discussing ondemand streaming licences often cover reproduction performing right elements copyright even two sets rights ultimately controlled different parties except us download treated reproduction joint licences income needs split reproduction performing rights processed songwriters would receive performing rights revenue direct cmo share reproduction rights revenue would either paid direct via publisher depending rules local society personalised radio download stores still infancy early number startups began experimenting form webcasting content could subject compulsory licences dissecting digital dollar page digital licensing personalised user rather radiostyle webcasting users hear content simple tune tune commonly referred personalised radio services famous platforms today probably pandora personalised radio recording rights us question quickly raised whether personalised radio services could license sound recording rights soundexchange compulsory licence used conventional webcasters labels still nervous innovative digital business models point would obliged license services service providers would pay rates ultimately set copyright royalty board compulsory licence introduced arguably intended conventional webcasting ensure labels didnt block growth standard online radio congress certainly didnt envisage licence would apply fully interactive streaming services like spotify however operators personalised radio platforms argued services fact properly interactive compulsory licence apply law provided compulsory licence conclusive point yahoo acquired personalised radio service called launch tested reach compulsory licence court confirming services kind could indeed operate soundexchange licence paying royalties rates set crb recording rights available compulsory licence via soundexchange though dsp choose negotiate direct label wisheslicensing royalties personalised radio us publishing rights publishers license via cmos dsp choose negotiate direct publisher wishes though publisher cant currently force direct deal current ascapbmi consent decreesservice needs licence cover song copyright sound recording copyright performer rights performer er technically applies service licensed via soundexchangecmo pays label minus commissioncmo pays featured artists sessions musicians minus commissioncmo pays songwriter minus commissioncmo pays publisher minus commission publisher may pass additional cut songwriter depending publishing contractdigital licensing page dissecting digital dollar publishers also licensing fledgling companies collective licensing system made much easier services legally launch us personalised radio market grew early quickly kind streaming service especially pandora iheartradio remain significant country despite fully ondemand streaming dominating europe important note music rights owners come resent way pandora licensed especially since companys ipo made founders rich finances public subsequent seemingly relentless efforts digital company persuade crb collective licensing courts reduce royalty payments exacerbated resentment personalised radio publishing rights american labels pretty much locked licensing pandora soundexchange unless new legislation passed big publishers country sought stop licensing services kind collecting societies forcing digital service providers direct deals arguably pressing issue publishers songwriters current system earn much less record companies however us courts ruled current american collective licensing rules aka consent decrees govern cmos bmi ascap forbid partial withdrawal rights performing rights organisations meaning force pandora direct deals publishers would need start licensing customers performing rights including amfm radio stations concert promoters directly move would pose logistical legal challenges publishers successfully forced review us collective licensing rules us department justice expected conclude partial withdrawal allowed subject conditions though create logistical legal challenges example publishers simply withdraw digital performing rights songs ascap bmi without explicit permission songwriters meanwhile international repertoire licensed ascap bmi reciprocal agreements cmos around world often exclusively mandate us societies act licensors withdrawal would possible without approval likely participation societies would work though pandora previously negotiate direct deals big publishers fearing time imminent withdrawal cmos rights owners secured higher rates incentive meet challenges make direct deals work personalised radio outside us outside us fewer personalised radio services launched always gained traction level spotifystyle platforms though fully ondemand services notably rdio offer personalised radio freemium levels outside us labels may license personalised radio services directly though countries may also allow cmos license services dissecting digital dollar page digital licensing soundexchange would license us even though obliged law done performer er may may paid depending local conventions publishers outside us also initially licensed services cmos similar way conventional webcasts though repertoire may licensed directly way outline next section scenarios income needs split reproduction performing rights may affect songwriters paid ondemand streaming biggest growth area recorded music today fully ondemand streaming digital service providers dsps like spotify apple music deezer rdio tidal google play napsterrhapsody services first began emerge around though napster rhapsody existed earlier different models really took record companies particularly majors seemed change heart regarding digital started proactively investigate consider new approaches monetising content albeit providing dsps agreed sizable upfront demands ondemand streaming sound recording rights soundexchange compulsory licence us definitely applying services record industry worldwide opted license fully ondemand streaming platforms directly though indies either rely digital rights body merlin negotiate deals piggy back distributors existing arrangement fully ondemand streaming services whether advertising subscription funded required different approach licensing labels part unlike cd download market labels charge set wholesale price per sale retailer download store streaming services usually licensed revenue share basis similar way performing rights organisations often license bigger concert promoters broadcasters said streaming service first launches little revenue share dsps fail generating serious income labels build number contingencies meaning deals least four maybe five components firstly core revenue share element labels generally seek revenue generated dsp allocated recordings secondly series minima guarantees label means whatever revenues dsp generates label receive minimum sum money time one tracks streamed possibly subscriber dsp signs well thirdly upfront cash advance whatever happens label knows make minimum sum money one licensing period royalty payments dsp begin advance recouped fourthly startups labels usually demand equity company aware single biggest revenue generator may sale streaming business either existing major tech media firm flotation stock exchange ipo digital licensing page dissecting digital dollar fifthly first deal labels add admin technology fee cover costs providing ingesting content dsps specific requirements dsp ad funded subscription level andor partnerships bundle paidfor subscriptions mobile isp services label likely negotiate separate deal option month revenue usage data need provided royalties calculated separately part deal deal place month thereabouts dsp report label period gone following category dsp calculates proportion overall revenue could attributed labels recordings based proportion total number streams came record companys catalogue b divided e pays label money depending terms specific deal unless minimum rate total number streams multiplied perplay minimum rate indeed minima guaranteed higher case dsp pays sum label instead theory streaming service matures elements original deal become irrelevant equity admin fees probably demanded first deal service becomes successful monthly revenues always exceed minimum payments minima become irrelevant though adfunded services may always whim advertising market revenues fluctuate labels paid must share income featured artists according record contracts downloads labels based artists share streaming income splits already received cd sales either explicitly new contracts interpreting predigital contracts way usually relatively low split commonly maybe percent streams downloads proven controversial indeed even many artists feel labels costs risks reduced streaming domain also argument streaming arguably exploits performing rights reproduction rights performer er paid income however labels argue performing right element streaming constitutes making available rather straight communication public performer er apply case arguments contentious return section eight b c etotal number subscribers total revenues sales tax deducted total number streams total number streams labels catalogue proportion total streams came labels catalogue c divided dissecting digital dollar page digital licensing ondemand streaming publishing rights publishing side streaming distinction reproduction performing rights becomes important role cmos publishing sector initially licensed streaming services collectively still us compulsory collective licensing rules restrict alternatives markets especially europe big publishers started license repertoire principally anglo american repertoire directly however move direct licensing posed challenge discussed outside us publishers control song copyrights outright rather songwriter assigns basically elements copyright cmo instead publisher enjoys contractual share revenue generated elements copyright means whereas record companies easily cut cmos deal making process music publishers power especially licensee needs exploit performing reproduction rights nevertheless digital market matured big music publishers europe decided wanted start licensing digital services directly arguing would benefit corporate rights owners songwriters resulted higher royalties recording rights record label licenses rights download storepublishing rights publishers license collectively via cmos label pays revenue share featured artist according contractcmo pays songwriter publisher minus commission publisher may pass additional cut songwriter depending publishing contractlicensing royalties demand streaming big publishers may license direct partnership cmos cmo may pay publisher pays royalty songwriter according contract cmo pays share songwriter share publisherpublisher pays royalty reproduction right income songwriter according publishing contractlicensee needs exploit reproduction performing rights latter technically making available right probably reproduction rights cmomusic publisher definition angloamerican repertoire vary though commonly includes songs registered cmos uk ireland us canada australia south africa performing rights cmodigital licensing page dissecting digital dollar overall digital service providers would also benefit direct deals could usually completed quicker multiterritory basis big publishers confident direct dealing would result better rates least direct deals would subject collective licensing regulation strengthening negotiating hand unlike us european collective licensing rules formulated response line cases court justice european union said publishers could exercise called partial withdrawal license digital directly continuing license sets users like radio concert promoters though collective licensing system however cmos actually control elements copyright dsps seek exploit publishers couldnt simply start licensing direct instead formed joint ventures one another european society called special purpose vehicles spvs ventures empowered represent reproduction rights parent publishers anglo american catalogue would gain permission relevant cmos also represent performing rights songs means spv negotiate direct deal dsp covers elements songs publishers repertoire deal making led publisher terms must approved participating cmos publishers gone route sonyatvemi via solar joint venture jv prs gema universal via deal jv sacem warnerchappell via pedl jv various societies mainly prs bmg via aresa jv gema kobalt originally via jv stim via amra society kobalt bought continues operate autonomous body bigger indies moving direction via impel initiative works prs digital licences streaming revenue received split performing reproduction rights splits vary country country collected split two sets rights income works way system going direct publisher cmo songwriter possibly receiving share two sources ie publisher society course five publishers negotiating digital deals direct control lot repertoire control direct deals generally cover anglo american catalogue whereas recordings side dsp doesnt deal place smaller rights owners doesnt carry labels content publishing side complicated coownership copyright common ownership data always easy come means dsp may receive recording label deals place publishers control song one indie publisher controls theory dsp shouldnt stream recording fully licensed hard digital service cmos offer multiterritory licences trend growing though licensing way arguably simpler direct dealing dissecting digital dollar page digital licensing know hasnt got licences needs place individual song even aware issue probably wont know independent controls remaining basically means dsps need get licensing deals place pretty much every publisher make things work mop generally done collective licensing system basically dsp europe needs deals solar deal pedl aresa amra individual deal local collecting society every country wishes operate always ensuring performing reproduction rights covered dsps like arrangement though societies trying reduce total number deals digital services required example hub created prs gema stim uk german swedish cmos respectively provide one multiterritory licence covering three societies repertoires including songs represented one spvs prs also manages licensing aforementioned impel rights included hub project publishers deals whether directly collectively negotiated similar labels ultimately revenue share arrangements minimum guarantees upfront advance publishers generally seek revenue allocated songs payments calculated similar way labels though worth noting coownership lack good ownership data creates challenges central database identifying owns controls song copyright songs coowned respective splits dsps generally rely publishers cmos tell due based songs streamed one month dsp provides spvs cmos spreadsheet recording every single stream took place preceding month spv cmo must identify every stream exploited song controls work owed based revenue share minima arrangement according percentage song owns controls back reporting creates two problems first processing level data massive task cmos process unprecedented amounts data total amount increases month streaming services grow many struggled second discrepancies different publishers cmos databases controls songs especially percentage splits coowned tracks meaning dsps sometimes asked pay monies due one stream happens digital services usually delay payment conflict resolved delays payment publisher songwriter aforementioned prsstimgema hub also hopes tackle challenges pooling data processing efforts three societies spvs involved one central pool ownership data disputes splits less likely happen prs stim already data sharing arrangement place called ice nevertheless worldwide challenges remain manager survey page dissecting digital dollar licensing digital services music industry clearly pretty complex evolved somewhat since first download stores webcasters needed licences evolution primarily led record companies music publishers cmos even though artists songwriters may also rights owners certainly beneficiaries music copyrights via contractual performer rights ascertain digital licensing explained artists management teams access information digital deals artists managers given surveyed artist managers across world including uk ireland france australia canada us together work three major record companies independents artist profile firstly questioned managers artists represent kinds copyrights artists involved creating deals done corporate rights owners specifically asked artists manageapproximately proportion assigned recordings retained ownership recordings assigned recordings retained others approximately proportion signed deals specifically mention digital income signed deals mention digital income approximately proportion involved creation sound recording copyrights song copyrights sound recording song copyrights approximately proportion signed major labels publishers independent labels publishers knowledge digital deals asked managers knew key elements digital deals struck labels publishers cmos work specifically streaming services section seven manager survey dissecting digital dollar page manager survey also deals organised structured included know revenue share arrangement label streaming services artists artists none artists im sure know minimum payments agreed label streaming services artists artists none artists im sure know following labels license services collectively ie via cmos services direct ie via cmos whether artists publishing rights licensed digital services via cmonegotiated deals publishernegotiated deals whether artists publishing royalties digital paid via cmo publisher combination two percentage stream deemed reproduction right percentage stream deemed performing right artists cmos digital royal ties next asked information provided way corporate rights owners calculate pay royalties artists songwriters digital income included know charges deductions labels making digital income calculating royalties artists artists none artists im sure digital income clearly presented royalty statements artists artists none artists im sure seen labels pay share digital breakage advances paid dsps exceeded perplay royalties owing one year artists artists none artists im sure manager survey page dissecting digital dollar communication digital deals royal ties managers clearly lacking information key elements many digital deals done corporate rights owners cmos way digital income processed shared asked whether respondents actively requested information whether briefings digital deals provided whether would attend briefings following requested information percentage revenue share arrangements minimum guarantees charges made digital royalties following invited briefings digital income royalties artists labels artists publishers artists cmos dsp invited following would attend briefing artists labels artists publishers artists cmos dsp royal ty splits next asked managers way digital income split different stakeholders something proven contentious recent years discussed detail section eight think fair labelartist split streaming income label artist label artist always depend record contract every deal different labels currently receive four six times streaming service revenues publisherssongwriters think current split fair money split label publisher money split label publisher money split label publisher opinion split money labelspublishers equitable remuneration paid artists digital services downloads streams streaming services download services personalised radio services like pandora dissecting digital dollar page manager survey issues predictions finally asked respondents considered key issues regarding digital rights royalties selecting list issues identified future developments anticipated important issues managers wished tackle record labels follows number respondents said important issue brackets labels increase artists share streaming income labels tell artists representatives specifics digital deal revenue share minimum guarantees advances equity labels provide artists representatives clear breakdown digital income processed charges made royalty splits calculated meanwhile issues managers would like government assist follows number respondents said important issue brackets labels forced share information digital deals beneficiaries copyrights control representatives performer equitable remuneration extended cover streaming services ie including ondemand services spotify services like youtube prevented using called safe harbours order run services content owners optout rather optin terms predictions future said streaming services would single biggest revenue stream record industry though thought streaming services would ultimately replace download platforms altogether meaning majority think two models coexist showing air pessimism thought record industry see growth streaming services come age thought labels would become transparent digital market matures mind thought new artists would continue primarily sign record companies foreseeable future issues page dissecting digital dollar division revenue primary way recorded music commercialised shifted physical digital recently downloads streams much debate monies generated digital services divided different stakeholders ie digital platforms labels publishers cmos artists songwriters various components debate rights owners digital platforms split question one digital income split music industry digital platforms dsps download stores streaming platforms see new retailers meant early digital services first began negotiating record companies music publishers cmos precedent digital services could base proposed business models knew cut pie traditional cd sellers taken resulted streaming services keeping approximately post salestax revenue though worth noting much approximate figure rights owner different revenue share arrangement streaming service meaning dsp might share anywhere revenue attributed one stream streams therefore costly others across board averages though deals rights owners dsps put initial risk latter digital service obliged make certain minimum payments labels publishers irrespective revenue outlined may always apply trial periods completely free user adfunded freemium posttrialperiod premium dsp yet reach critical mass means early days startup streaming service likely making payments rights owners exceed entire revenues expensive business setting new streaming platform nevertheless music community propose streaming services paying revenues rights owners though main dsps unsurprisingly resistant proposal report published earlier year uks entertainment retailers association counts key dsps amongst membership argued mainly loss making streaming services already struggling grow businesses split given infrastructures build advances guarantees pay report contained quote tough enough would shut shop somebody explain nothing nothing demanding dsps take cut average therefore possibly optimistic time though since jay z led acquisition tidal section eight issues dissecting digital dollar page issues company tried portray artistfriendly streaming service indicated willingness pay revenues music industry meanwhile apple music insists also generous industry standard long term perhaps room manoeuvre could go either way recent developments spotify deezer seen streaming services expand platforms include speech video content formers case originally commissioned content streaming platforms become like media companies invest content around music may wish share less revenue music industry though time rights ownersdigital split seems likely stay somewhere recording rights publishing rights split question two streaming revenues paid music industry monies split two copyrights ie recordings songs rights owner deal digital platform exact terms deals secret know sound recording owners likely revenue share arrangement around song owners likely revenue share arrangement means label likely taking four six times publisher disparity new indeed cd domain labelpublisher split would tipped even formers advantage various reasons including facts sound recording copyright owner earns one specific recording song publisher earns every version variation work owner song also earns every time work performed live also enjoys cut live sectors income sound recording copyright term lasts fixed time release years depending country whereas song term runs life creator set period time years depending country meaning song copyrights usually last significantly longer recording copyrights importantly sound recording owner ie label lot work getting cd market pays recording made cds pressed distributed marketing campaign successful result sales publisher paying advance songwriter none risk risk comes reward principally label earned much cd sales publisher however comes uses recorded music broadcast public performance sound recordings main rights owners often receive similar sum money licensees outside us america labels actually receive nothing mentioned digital performing right sound recording copyright may often label get new recordings radio stations club djs assumption record companies taking much lower risk rewards shared equally issues page dissecting digital dollar main something akin cd model applied downloads streams even though could argued itunes digital evolution record shop spotify actually digital evolution radio logic might suggest publisherlabel split inline traditional broadcast revenues paid music industry split equally two copyrights though actually proposing arrangement record industry music publishing sector streaming income many record companies argue arrangement would almost certainly put business even parallels spotify traditional radio labels continue take considerable risk creating new recorded content pump streaming services costs distribution may considerably less digital physical still significant costs associated creating new recorded music marketing releases digital rights administration still requires resource labels also digitise catalogues invest systems get content onto digital platforms labels really taking big risk digital age primarily selling cds wont risks decline digitalonly releases become norm initial setup costs industrys shift digital paid arent many labels partly securing investments new talent taking cut revenue streams beyond sound recording copyright merchandise live income brand partnershipssome music publishing industry starting publicly bemoan level income receiving booming streaming sector songwriters particular become vocal issue last year complaints partly aimed dsps us compulsory collective licensing rules impact publishing royalties digital services pay also questioning disparity label publisher payments streaming music survey artist managers generally supported shift split recording song copyrights becomes closer though publishing sector argue publishers cmos continue focus getting best possible deals respective repertoires rather getting turf war labels given digital platforms license recordings first indeed many go live publishing deals still pending fact revenue already committed record companies dsps deals publishers surely always limit digital services afford pay song rights though quite matter resolved clear though us task one reforming aforementioned compulsory collective licensing rules problem exacerbated publishers cmos opted commercial relationships dsps rather licensing labels letting provide content streaming platforms rights covered remember cd domain label retailer publishers licensee dissecting digital dollar page issues mentioned main reason publishers cmos generally felt separate arrangements dsps would get paid faster would better access usage data hindsight also argument labels would resistant bigger publishers subsequently going direct licensing route digital europe via spv joint ventures cmos record companies generally paid publishers set rates collective licensing system past reasons publishing sector licensing dsps rather labels still sound arrangement means direct commercial relationship labels publishers comes digital licensing leaving dsp somewhat caught middle two sides music rights industry start dispute way digital royalties split different music copyrights except course many music rights firms majors labels publishers commercial link top businesses though music rights companies interests sound recording song copyrights would likely prefer status quo ie majority money coming labels generally record companies pay artists much smaller share income publishers songwriters least publishing income paid direct songwriters via cmos meanwhile record industry large likely hopes publishers songwriters placated line streaming revenues boom even minority split money becomes lucrative though wider recorded music market still pretty flat gains streaming income compensate declines cd download sales may sometime publishers songwriters start feel optimistic digital reproduction rights performing rights split question three downloads streams exploit reproduction communication controls copyright ie reproduction performing rights income allocated two elements copyright recording rights sound recording side could argued distinction academic one record company routinely controls elements copyright artist contracts dont usually distinguish reproduction performing rights comes royalties record contracts likely distinguish sales licence income said performer er relevant copyright systems performer er due performing rights sound recording copyright exploited reproduction rights used however performer er paid digital income date reasons outlined would due performing right allocation digital revenue reproduction right allocation featured artists would instead due royalties set label contract point digital issues page dissecting digital dollar monies allocated two elements copyright would become important labels artists publishing rights reproductionperforming rights split already important publishing side especially us countries monies different rights flow system differently like uk important us reproduction performing rights still licensed separately meaning dsps need seek two sets licenses one cover reproduction rights one cover performing rights uk rest europe publishers cmos provide dsps joint reproductionperforming right licenses way monies paid publishers songwriters differs depending element copyright exploited uk system performing rights income always paid directly songwriter prs oblivious whether recouped publishing deal reproduction rights income paid publisher pays songwriter share according specific publishing contract signed songwriters therefore likely beneficial digital income allocated performing right reproduction right especially yet recoup publishing deal copyright law actually define controls exploited download stream split two controls therefore industry defines splits common practice assume download reproduction performing right stream performing reproduction right download income may split reproduction performing right streaming income may split reproduction performing right though splits vary country country changed time may artist label split question four record label owns copyright sound recording pays royalty featured artist terms record contract royalty label pay downloads streams compared cds much debate since early days itunes digital income shared labels artists much less debate similar split publishers songwriters possibly publishing contracts traditionally much generous songwriters record contracts artists usually labels make much bigger upfront investments publishers every contract different course though publishing contracts always see songwriter take least revenue possibly modern contracts significantly label side indie label deals may offer net split artist common arrangement see record company keep majority core income streams sales v licence convention record contracts royalties paid label artist often differ according revenue stream though side debate possibly underway songwriters seen income drop significantly digital shifts downloads streams dissecting digital dollar page issues label may keep record sale monies generous arrangement may apply income sync distinction often described predigital contracts using terms sale money generated directly exploiting copyright eg selling cds licence money generated licensing deals eg sync created problem record companies legacy contracts specifically mention downloads streams digital clearly licensing rather sales scenario label gives permission digital platform exploit copyrights rather directly making selling copies recordings strict interpretation conventional predigital record contract therefore could require label pay higher licence royalty digital income main happened vast majority labels paying lower sales royalty downloads many streams significant number veteran artists sued record companies point contractual interpretation albeit mainly us landmark case fbt productions v universal music relating stake producers mark jeff bass early recordings eminem signed universal label interscope longdrawn litigation sales v licence point fbt productions case subsequently securing higher royalty digital income stemming eminem recordings universal insisted case set general precedent labels pay licence royalty digital nevertheless countless artists sued higher digital royalties securing class action status litigation meaning artist similar contract record company might able claim higher royalties lawsuits prevailed despite high number lawsuits cases reached court main majors sought settle actions though settlements made public mainly relating class actions generally seen majors offer slight increases download royalties usually provision past royalties legal costs date outcome artists seeing per cent downloads cd sales though higher profile legacy artists may secured preferential rates via confidential ofcourt arrangements worth noting cases focused download rather streaming income relating period time former revenue stream vastly outperformed latter argument stream treated licence sale surely even stronger downloads newer digital royalty lawsuits cover streams well cases yet resolved matter could yet return court risk transparency newer record contracts course clearly set royalties due digital income possibly also separating downloads streams artists may secure slightly better rate downloads cd slightly better rate streams downloads though unlikely achieve anything close split digital unless working independent label always worked net revenue share basis would almost issues page dissecting digital dollar certainly making significantly lower investment outset beyond described contractual interpretation disputes separate debate labelartist split fair digital record companies would argue continue primary risk takers music industry therefore need keep majority recorded music revenue stream investment successfully launches new artist andor album though artists managers like songwriters publishers might argue true extent surely risks less digital physical therefore labels generous share profits managers surveyed said split would fairer argument arguably even stronger legacy artists label recouped initial investment long ago costs getting catalogue market considerably smaller course comes new rather ambiguous legacy record contracts label could argue artist wasnt happy splits receiving downloads streams shouldnt done deal managers surveyed agreed beyond sales v licence debate old contracts digital royalty rates artists labels agree contract new talent needs labels investment may accept terms dont especially like greater concern many managers artists postdigital record contracts transparency quote many lawyer may split streaming income precisely conventional contracts record companies allowed make deductions income calculating artist due revenue share arrangement quite deductions made varies contract contract might include packaging costs cost lost damaged stock fees international subsidiaries record company provide additional local marketing distribution services deductions always point contention artist label especially two parties actively working together new content record company arguably real incentive placate artist may instead seek maximise profits reducing artist royalty payments wherever possible anything deductions become contentious digital era number reasons labels seem continue making deductions things apply physical age lost damaged stock managers question international subsidiaries continue take cut revenue physical digital distribution social media activity example could done global basis label artists home country problems exacerbated secrecy surrounds digital deals complicated different labels apply refer report deductions different ways making hard artists managers track going transparency managers lips years become definite buzz word music rights industry year digital licensing dissecting digital dollar page issues area transparency definitely needed performer er making available mentioned although copyright law define either downloads streams generally accepted distribution recorded content digital channels exploits reproduction performing right elements copyright performing right systems performing rights traditionally cover performance communication controls copyright comes sound recordings conventionally means respectively playing recorded music public space broadcast recorded music fm dab radio channels terrestrial satellite cable tv networks making available right question five kind digital services exploit conventional performing rights kind exploit specific making available right copyright law specific point would seem reasonable suggest communication control covers traditional broadcasting also cover webcasting ie radio tv style services delivered internet mentioned early days world wide web concerns interactive forms digital distribution principally downloads end new specific control called making available right formally introduced world intellectual property organisation treaties european union subsequently added many individual copyright systems according wipo treaty applies electronic transmission way members public may access recording place time individually chosen neither broadcasts online simulcasts tv radio definitely downloads possibly interactive digital channels though interactive digital channels specifically distinction sometimes made effect personalised radio services come conventional communication control fully ondemand streaming platforms come newer making available right everyone agrees confusion fully demand streaming services like spotify also offer personalised radio option within platforms performer er digital question six performer equitable remuneration apply streaming services including exploiting making available right distinction semantic one performer er mentioned countries performer er due performing rights sound recording copyright exploited making available right despite arguably subset communication control commonly excluded streaming service exploiting conventional communication control performer er paid issues page dissecting digital dollar making available right play automatic ie noncontractual payments performers due makes ambiguities around definition stream terms copyright law perplexing performer community depending making available implemented one copyright system two possible arguments current approach first making available apply downloads meaning streaming services exploiting conventional communication control meaning performer er due second performer er due whenever making available right exploited anyway exclusion performer er making available mistake decided performer er due streaming income either classifying streams communication rather making available applying performer er making available right digital services would obliged pay royalties directly performers well labels likely collective licensing system uk would labels obligation ensure performers received er would mean significant shift negotiating power featured artists unable secure better digital royalties labels opening new revenue stream session musicians usually contractual right share digital income would receive er payments way broadcast public performance quite would work isnt clear though developments issue european countriesthe performers making available control question seven record labels need specific making available waiver artists exploiting recordings digitally another area contention regarding making available performer er may apply making available nevertheless included list controls provided recording artists performer rights performer controls labels need artists waive assign making available right contract order subsequently exploit element copyright new artist contracts specifically state performers making available right waived assigned legacy contracts pre date addition making available right copyright law mids obviously contracts cannot include term specifically waiving making available control control time contract written could therefore argued exploit making available right downloads streams record label must first secure new agreement every legacy artist waiving new performer control artists could use moment negotiate better digital royalties however record companies assumed legacy artist contracts already provide right exploit making available control two arguments might case making available subset existing communication control may referenced original contract vague catchall term may dissecting digital dollar page issues included original contract artist waives current future performer controls however many artists dispute points arguing making available distinct performer control vague catchall terms enforceable dispute currently subject test cases two key cases date involved finnish rock band hurriganes swedish musician johan johansson former case hurriganes prevailed legal dispute universal music whether legacy contract could waive performer control exist time contract written though added complication case neither side could actually produce record contract question johan johansson meanwhile lawsuit record company mnw whether despite owning copyright recordings johansson appeared nevertheless right distribute content streaming services exploit making available right recent cases appeals may follow remains seen set precedent finland sweden beyond cases andor future litigation issue could yet confirm record companies assumption regarding making available incorrect digital deals nda cul ture music industrys deals dsps confidential small number people label publisher cmo party specifics arrangement means noncorporate beneficiaries copyrights exploited digital platforms ie artists songwriters allowed know terms copyrights used nevertheless basic structure arrangements known described digital deals ultimately revenue share arrangements dsp also committing minimum guarantees upfront advances possibly additional fees provision equity rights owner despite usually knowing specifics deals many artists managers raised concerns key elements equity question eight record companies music publishers demand equity digital startups share profits subsequent share sale artists songwriters terms rights owners require equity first licensing startup streaming businesses particularly true three major record companies previously referenced indie labels digital rights body merlin noted logic rights owners taking equity new dsps license first time many invest new tech startups assuming profit investment company becomes profitable concern sold existing major media tech business via ipo may biggest profits made startup business stem first transaction thats issues page dissecting digital dollar startups backers profit labels want cut action artists managers understand logic still point contention happens profits made label sells equity stake startup assumption many labels keep profits entirety citing clauses artist contracts say record company obliged pay royalties artists income directly identifiably attributable specific recording artists managers argue unfair label able demand equity first place combined value artists recordings therefore artists share profits equity sale additionally labels obliged share income artists may agree less favourable terms revenue share minimum guarantees income shared artists return better deal equity ongoing legal battle sony music recently said unapologetically perfectly entitled structure deals way wished though many labels would actually counter monetary value equity stake uncertain accessible foreseeable future unlikely forego shortterm revenues return better equity deal nevertheless ambiguities around equity labels dsps value shareholdings could sale takes place happen money mean remains contentious issue many independent labels sign world independent networks fair digital deals declaration committing account artists goodfaith pro rata share revenues compensation digital services stem monetisation recordings attributed specific recordings performances artists managers clear actually mean equity sale takes place position major record companies issue even less clear advances question nine record companies music publishers demand large advances new digital services share breakage unallocated advances artists songwriters terms rights owners request upfront advances often millions dsps leaked sony music deal spotify us provided million advance year one million year two million optional third year advances usually recoupable dsp set time period non refundable revenue share minimum guaranteebased royalties due period exceed advance paid dsp pays million advance next year record companys catalogue generates revenue share minimum guarantee arrangement rights owner gets keep extra logic advances many startups ultimately deliver little way revenue initially ever rights owner wants build guarantees justify going effort deal real terms business likes paid upfront possible dissecting digital dollar page issues artists managers raised two concerns advances first size advances arguably makes hard new dsps enter market service needs considerable funds available pay multimillion advances outset ultimately reduces consumer choice makes hard niche services launch concern also expressed uk entertainment retailers association manifesto document earlier year second issue happens unallocated advances often dubbed breakage example record company deal due based consumption repertoire paid million advance happens label simply bank surplus share artists june three major record companies made commitments share surplus artists universal sony made commitments breakage fell media scrutiny warner committed sharing revenue sometime many independents meanwhile signatories aforementioned fair digital deals declaration said remains unclear exactly commitments breakage mean real terms ie surpluses allocated artists allocations began also noted successful streaming service established advances nearly always recouped dsp surplus therefore may major record companies committed share surpluses artists isnt money share kickbacks question ten record companies music publishers demand kickbacks new digital services share benefits artists terms rights owners may also receive kickbacks equity advances label publisher may able charge administration technical legal fees dsp may receive benefits example aforementioned leaked sonyspotify contact record company received allocation advertising dsps freemium service could use sell equity many artists managers fear rights owners may agree less favourable terms key revenue share minimum guarantee arrangements return extra kickbacks artists must share former excluded latter may simply paranoia part artists managers secrecy surrounds many digital deals adds distrust ndas question eleven right beneficiaries copyright allowed know songs recordings monetised new performer right ensure information made available artists songwriters representatives brings us issue commonly raised artists managers regarding music industrys digital deals demonstrated survey secrecy surrounds arrangement issues page dissecting digital dollar means artists songwriters despite beneficiaries music copyrights allowed know copyrights valued exploited tendency rights owners dsps blame nda culture grown around digital music market seems likely wide ranging nondisclosure agreements surround digital deals originally requested services common tech sector though seems many rights owners overly embraced ndas subsequent years usually citing competition concerns need secrecy course company wants degree confidentiality around commercial deals confidentiality clauses common contractual agreements rights owners might argue negotiating hands would weakened new digital service knew precisely deal competitors secured weaker negotiating hand would detriment stakeholders music copyright however result secrecy surrounding music industrys digital deals artists songwriters despite beneficiaries music copyright dark copyrights commercialised results number problems makes hard artists songwriters properly audit royalties receive ensure paid contractually due makes hard artists songwriters assess whether opinion label publisher cmo behaving fair way assessment could affect artist songwriters subsequent deals agreements makes hard artists songwriters assess whether label publisher cmo securing best deals processing payments efficient way assessment could affect artist songwriters subsequent deals agreements makes hard artists songwriters assess relative value music consumed rival digital platforms facts inevitably result breakdown trust labels artists publishers songwriters andor public criticism digital services high profile artists songwriters may may justified beyond many various issues could argued ethical element debate right legal beneficiary copyright deprived crucial information required calculate exactly benefit due right information moral right contract copyright law right information exploitation sound recording added new additional performer right recent report berklee college musics rethink music programme proposed creators bill rights includes line every creator deserves know entire payment stream royalties eg parties taking cut much meanwhile france governmentled initiative involving artists labels recently resulted code conduct latter words international federation phonographic industry would seek dissecting digital dollar page issues bring greater clarity understanding distribution revenues different parties given ndas already entered competition concerns expressed dsps rights owners justify agreements may well difficult persuade every label publisher cmo share information artists managers say need though right information added list performer rights could force rights owners hands current position management community seems ndas may necessary artists songwriters managers brought inside nda know specifics digital deals course lot artists songwriters managers could argued hundreds thousands people inside nda confidentiality clause becomes unenforceable information inevitably leak would impossible identify leaking possible compromise artists songwriters allowed request accountants access information auditing purposes would overcome though problems outlined would reduce number people party confidential information given accountants usually subject specific professional standards would provide formality information used another option would simply make fundamentals digital deal revenue share minima advance equity public domain given services similar arrangements rights owners often lock deals competitors anyway use kind favoured nation clauses mentioned discussing sync information public domain dsps rights owners operating arrangements success would become wholly users content consumed respectively rather good deal scored outset safe harbours opt services question twelve safe harbours european american law revised companies like youtube soundcloud cannot benefit however good takedown systems may may american european law provides protection internet companies provide tools channels used others distribute copyright works without licence protections originate americas digital millennium copyright act european unions electronic commerce directive commonly referred within industry safe harbours safe harbours work copyright perspective safe harbours intended protect emerging market occupied internet service providers server hosting companies similar businesses liability copyright infringement companies customers used internet access web storage bought distribute copyright infringing material issues page dissecting digital dollar early internet companies argued without protection liability business models would become unfeasible owing difficulty identifying infringing content amongst incredibly high volumes traffic growth internet usage would therefore curtailed condition safe harbour protection internet company system place via copyright owners flag copyright infringing content material internet firm removes content made aware often called takedown systems people music industry often refer dmca takedowns even europe european law rather dmca actually applies quality takedown systems operated websites claiming safe harbour protection vary greatly nevertheless rights owners routinely issue large numbers takedown notices companies us uk record industry particularly prolific domain debate kinds services protection last years especially last twelve months representatives record industry music publishing sector begun argue safe harbours used much diverse range businesses originally intended lawmakers europe us kind business labels publishers mainly thinking userupload platforms like youtube dailymotion soundcloud users upload audio video files dsps servers including peoples copyright work without requisite licenses obtained dsp aggregates content content accessible central home page search engine users organise playlists outcome process sites like youtube soundcloud soon boast music libraries similar often larger services like spotify therefore start compete platforms unlike spotify accesses content result licensing deals record companies userupload services rely solely labels provide music instead labels publishers wish content appear platforms must issue takedown notices andor pursue legal action actual individual uploaders desirable option rights owners perspective makes optout rather optin streaming services labels publishers believe runs contrary basic principle copyright ie rights copyright owner extend beyond mere right content removed hindsight permission always sought copyright work exploited even tricky process said rights owners objecting concept safe harbours outright recognising practicalities led introduction first place rather questioning whether userupload platforms arguably content providers well providers internet services enjoy protection poses number questions us european law currently written provide userupload platforms safe harbour protection operators platforms would dissecting digital dollar page issues almost certainly answer unequivocal yes arguing legal precedent side rights owners might argue current law less clear cut still open interpretation even current law provide services safe harbour protection lawmakers ever imagine services like youtube soundcloud benefiting safe harbours even current situation sufficiently detrimental affect copyright andor copyright industries justify rethink course userupload services actually sought licenses music industry licenses allow rights owners upload monetise content platforms also claim monetise remove songs recordings uploaded platform third parties notable domain youtube longestablished licensing deals many probably music rights owners built system called content id help rights owners monitor remove monetise content uploaded third parties whether content audio official music video cover version published song recording synced third party video nevertheless many rights owners benefited licensing deals remain critical argument goes safe harbours give youtube unfair advantage licensing negotiations basically say content already either license us terms youll left cost monitoring networks daily basis userupload services might counter rights owners always dedicate resource monitoring unlicensed use content youtube could argue content id removes many costs anyway though rights owners would likely say automated rights management system reliable always admin costs associated running even content id account makes harder rights owners walk away negotiating table labels publishers argue results licensed user upload services getting preferential rates creating value gap music rights sector debate takedown systems second element debate around safe harbours music industry sophisticated takedown systems many music rights owners issue takedown notices industrial scale sites claim safe harbour protection recordings removed said sites exact replacements often immediately uploaded users platforms rights owners therefore required constantly monitor sites new uploads issue flood new takedown notices day process commonly compared game whacamole music industry would prefer sophisticated takedown systems recording removed one site first time stays ie site takes measures ensure uploaded sophisticated takedown system must websites operate order enjoy safe harbour protection ambiguity though american courts generally set bar particularly high regards takedown system look like dmca issues page dissecting digital dollar rights owners suspect userupload platforms operate deliberately poor takedown systems business models rely steady stream copyright infringing content example music industry criticised takedown system operated defunct userupload streaming service grooveshark though litigation led services closure centred music allegedly uploaded staff rather users didnt test safe harbour law current criminal action defunct filetransfer service megaupload ever reaches court may consider american law says takedowns specifically whether safe harbours still apply company shown willfully blind users distributing content without licence andor encouraged activity even nominal takedown system place course content id youtube built probably sophisticated takedown system though noted doesnt mean reliable date much effective managing recording rather song rights video platform said youtube continues evolve technology music community might benefit vocal clear would like system takedown system matter achieve userupload platforms fit copyright law review europe music rights industry put safe harbours top lobbying agenda year argues however law may interpreted years safe harbours never intended userupload services like youtube said services effect exploiting loophole law build massive content platforms without paying marketrate cases royalties copyright owners music industry basically asking lawmakers revisit safe harbours ask questions expressed kind services enjoy kind protection impact current situation copyright industries one level issue unites wider music industry trade groups representing labels publishers collective management organisations artists songwriters called safe harbour rules revisited way said side debates youtube likely argue without safe harbours could operate viable business would manually monitor every single upload platform would far cost prohibitive last thing marketing teams record companies want kill youtube one important marketing channels modern music business also argument content id youtube actually helped music industry create new revenue streams monetising previously lost forgotten content users rather rights owners digitised creating new income usergenerated content bedroom produced cover versions consumers sharing unlicensed content numerous ways online could argued benefits rights owners sharing occur dissecting digital dollar page issues platforms rights effectively managed monetised change safe harbour rules really result cutback youtube benefits content id could go though bullish music industry executives might argue youtubes claim could operate without safe harbour protection bluff therefore less lose might seem yes youtube might invest order proactively monitor uploads networks given revenues service presumably generates coupled valuable data traffic provides wider google network think investment company would make least removal safe harbours direct competitors would give youtube competitive advantage better positioned take monitoring duties rivals though even youtube could would adapt revised safe harbour rules tech industry large likely express concern wider impact changes might online businesses social networks users routinely post photos articles owned third parties without permission beyond specifics services like youtube soundcloud music industry may need also address concerns unintended consequences order win debate said part reason rights owners lobbying safe harbour issue perceived value gap argue existence userupload platforms created digital music market userupload platforms freetoaccess monetisation possible usually adfunded many music community frustrated adfunded platforms enjoy much bigger audiences paidfor services generate much less income though seems inevitable digital music market always based around majority consume via lowvalue industry platforms minority use highvalue premium services challenge growing ad revenues increase value free services find better ways convert freemium users premium users either userupload services upselling paytouse packages integrate better premium platforms music industry knows must rise challenge would likely say lobbying safe harbour reform part process though continue concurrently explore ways ad revenue premium upsell user upload platforms increased data question thirteen music rights industry rising challenge processing usage data royalty payments streaming services data demands artists songwriters making labels publishers cmos central database copyright ownership ultimately required mentioned shift downloads streams created significant data challenges music industry whereas rights owners needed know time single track album sold order calculate due retailer download issues page dissecting digital dollar store need know every single time every single track listened every single user resulted flood usage data labels publishers cmos process time whereas line sales data would relate least pennies income often label least pounds listen generate fractions penny revenue data processing subsequent auditing therefore must efficient possible administration costs eat revenue course technology solutions problem rights owners started invest building buying systems steep learning curve highly likely data processing therefore revenue distribution perfect streaming services first started gain momentum indeed music rights sector still tackling challenge labels publishers cmos developing systems often hidden cost many outside seeing streaming much cheaper model rights owners ultimately might short term shifting new model required considerable investment nevertheless artists songwriters continue put pressure business partners domain least considering data processing abilities deciding labels partners cmos work data problem exacerbated lack central database copyright ownership information limits dsps help process problem songwriters publishers outlined dsp assumes whichever label distributor provides track controls recording copyright therefore receive usage data royalties linked recording however label distributor tell dsp controls song copyright central database access information said means dsp provide every publisher every cmo relationship complete list content usage every month rights owner work due significantly increases data every rights owner process well delaying payments whenever dispute two rights owners paid use specific work ie two publishers claim specific song attempts music publishing sector build publicly accessible global repertoire database inbuilt system settle disputes multiple rights owners claim ownership work collapsed last year still moves cmos principally prs gema stim europe combine respective ownership data create regional repertoire database hope similar collaborations take place around world rrds could eventually merged create grd however doesnt currently seem plan make rrds publicly available concerns confidentiality commercial agreements one objection given full disclosure alliances prs gema stim may reduce much data processing takes place month month current system must remain arguably less efficient deprive dissecting digital dollar page issues song rights owners real time data reduces music industry expect dsps collective licensing question fourteen streaming services best licensed direct collective management organisations direct best solution societies actually control elements copyright artists songwriters actually told solutions adopted mentioned sometimes digital services licensed music industrys collective licensing system sometimes direct deals rights owners main beyond webcasts basically online versions radio covered soundexchange compulsory licence us record industry chosen license digital services directly whereas publishers often license digital collectively sometimes cmos control key elements copyright cant cut licensing equation sometimes cmos best song ownership data best positioned calculate distribute royalties though seen europe big publishers licensing direct albeit partnership cmos given collective licensing traditionally used licensees using large amounts music paying relatively low royalties perusage could argue would make sense streaming services licensed way many artists songwriters would prefer approach possibly trust cmo label publisher payments via cmos often circumvent contractual terms enable labels publishers retain income feel collective licensing fairer everyone earns per play fees rather bigger artists rights owners better deal said labels bigger publishers would argue many benefits direct deals collective licensing regulations law cmos rules slow deal making reduce strength rights owners negotiating hand cmos always empowered equipped negotiate multiterritory licences digital services need cmos transparent money processed resulting ambiguities delays pros cons involving cmos though involvement cmos either attractive publishing europe necessary rights societies control possible widespread review statutory regulation collective licensing cmos rules regulations required certainly issues raised songwriters publishers relation digital licensing much cmos rules way dsps business maybe collective licensing digital actually needs separated forms collective licensing former operating global basis latter continues operate territory territory basis sense message implied amra collecting society bought relaunched kobalt seeking represent digital rights publishers songwriters global basis adapting new business models question fifteen biggest challenge music industry simply adapting new business model pays based consumption rather sales much longer time period artists songwriters better adapt one final challenge wider music community simply adapting new business model rather record company setting wholesale price record sold income shared label publisher artist songwriter instead music industry receives monthly cut monies generated streaming platforms divided stakeholders based consumption new model means repeat listening rather first week sales key monies come much longer period time rather via quick spike album launched also means records songs fans listen long period time lucrative whereas previously albums consumers stopped listening soon purchase made much money music industry albums played regular basis years whereas songwriters contributed filler songs consumers perhaps used skip would still earn cut cd model steaming system tracks album actually played earn royalties much stating obvious course except critics streaming music model often apply old metrics new business said outset given streaming service licensing models developed last ten years best fairest efficient way business though however models evolve future labels publishers artists songwriters adapt fact music generate income different ways different timescales issues page dissecting digital dollar dissecting digital dollar page glossary angloamerican repertoire exact definition vary though commonly refers songs registered cmos uk ireland us canada australia south africa assignment ownership copyright transferred one party another often artist songwriter label publisher assignment possible many though copyright systems author rights term civil law systems music perspective means rights songs compositions opposed rights recordings collective licensing music rights owners license one appointing collective management organisation license behalf collective licensing often subject extra regulation overcome competition law concerns collective management organisation cmo organisations represent rights owners license collectively cmos usually represent either publishing rights recording rights may represent reproduction rights performing rights publishing side cmos may actually control elements copyrights represent rather simply representing agent members cmos also referred collecting societies performing rights organisations pros compulsory licence copyright law obliges rights owners provide licence certain group licensees thus limiting rights owners negotiating power rights owners still due royalties usually ultimately set copyright tribunal court compulsory licences usually managed cmos digital service provider dsp term used refer companies provide digital music services including download stores streaming platforms featured artist musicians whose name names one recording released opposed session musicians simply credited small print record labels generally sign record deals featured artists making available right specific copyright control exploited services make content available via digital channels way user may access place time individually chosen applies download platforms probably least streaming services though remains debate mechanical rights publishers usually refer reproduction rights especially exploited labels recording distribution songs music publisher companies control song copyrights called original business publish books sheet music glossaryglossary page dissecting digital dollar neighbouring rights term used mean number different things civil law systems refers sound recording right opposed author right covers songs compositions record industry often used refer specifically performing rights element sound recording copyright sometimes used specifically refer performer equitable remuneration paid performing rights income performer er one performer rights performer equitable remuneration artists including featured artists session musicians enjoy automatic right share sound recording revenues statutory rather contractual right usually cannot waived assigned contract performer er applies certain revenue streams commonly performing rights income performer rights specific rights performers recordings appear coexist rights copyright owner performers copyright owners performer rights include controls fixation subsequent exploitation recordings right equitable remuneration certain revenue streams performing rights specific controls copyright owners enjoy public performance communication works publishing rights copyright songs specifically lyrics compositions record companyrecord label companies control recording copyrights also commonly key investor artists especially new artists recording rights copyright sound recordings reproduction rights specific controls copyright owners enjoy reproduction distribution works special purpose vehicle spv name used refer joint ventures struck big publishers cmos licence angloamerican repertoire digital services representing publishers reproduction rights cmos matching performing rights sync film tv advert video game producers synchronise existing songs recordings moving imagesmusic managers forum unit tileyard studios tileyard road london n ah wwwthemmfnet infothemmfnet"
+}