DiCola (2013)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

DiCola (2013)
Title: Money from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons About Copyright Incentives
Author(s): DiCola, P.
Year: 2013
Citation: DiCola, P. (2013). Money from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians' Revenue and Lessons About Copyright Incentives. Ariz. L. Rev., 55, 301.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: More than 6700 eligible musicians took at least part of the survey in September and October of 2011. A total of 5371 musicians completed the key question about revenue sources. A total of 5013 respondents gave us enough information to estimate their income from music-related sources, and 4652 musicians made it through every single question in the survey.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2011 September and October.
Funder(s):

Abstract

According to the incentive theory of copyright, financial rewards are what the public trades for the production of creative works. To know whether this quid pro quo is working, one needs to know how much the creators are getting from the bargain. Based on an original, nationwide survey of more than 5,000 musicians, this Article addresses one of the key links in the incentive theory's chain of logic. For most musicians, copyright does not provide much of a direct financial reward for what they are producing currently. The survey findings are instead consistent with a winner-take-all or superstar model in which copyright motivates musicians through the promise of large rewards in the future in the rare event of wide popularity.

Main Results of the Study

Rather than providing marginal incentives to create for all musicians at all times, copyright law mostly affects the revenue of the highest-income musicians in a direct fashion.

Most musicians earn a relatively small portion of their revenue from sources directly related to copyright.

Thus, a hypothetical boost in revenue from more effective enforcement would only increase the average musician's total revenue by a small amount today, in the short term.

If the hypothetical copyright enforcement legislation helps those entities, it is possible that musicians might benefit from greater royalty income and other changes in intermediaries' policies.

Stronger copyright enforcement might provide musicians with incentives to move up the income ladder in a winner-take-all kind of market. It will not, however, put more money in their pocket today.

Better enforcement could help record labels' bottom lines to an extent that the labels could begin offering larger advances and greater support to artists again.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The best approach for policymakers is to craft copyright policy that accommodates the diversity of musicians-and perhaps to begin thinking about a policy for the music industry that goes beyond copyright.

In addition to copyright reform, other policies could provide incentives for creativity in other ways. Examples include municipal policies toward venues for live performances, music education programs in schools, and efforts to support local arts communities.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Green-tick.png
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Green-tick.png
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Green-tick.png
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Green-tick.png
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 5371
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 2011 September and October.


Sample size: 5013
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 2011 September and October.


Sample size: 4652
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 2011 September and October.