Difference between revisions of "Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2021)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Qualitative Collection Methods, Quantitative Collection Methods
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Qualitative Collection Methods, Quantitative Collection Methods
 
|Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods
 
|Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods
 +
|Industry=Sound recording and music publishing
 
|Country=United Kingdom
 
|Country=United Kingdom
 
|Cross-country=No
 
|Cross-country=No

Revision as of 12:25, 30 August 2021

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

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing 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

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Economics of Music Streaming
Title: Economics of Music Streaming
Author(s): DCMS
Year: 2021
Citation: DCMS (2021) Economics of Music Streaming. House of Commons
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Submissions of written and oral evidence of interested parties in response to Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee call for evidence on the Economics of Music Streaming. The report describes the information gathered:

"We have received almost 300 pieces of written evidence, organised an engagement event with emerging artists and held seven oral evidence sessions during which we heard from performers, songwriters, composers, music companies, trade bodies, collecting societies, government ministers and, of course, the streaming services themselves".

Data Type: Secondary 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?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2021
Funder(s):
  • House of Commons

Abstract

We launched our inquiry in October 2020 to consider the impact of music streaming on the creators and companies that comprise the music industry and examine the long- term sustainability of the industry itself.

Main Results of the Study

Streaming has undoubtedly helped save the music industry following two decades of digital piracy but it is clear that what has been saved does not work for everyone. The issues ostensibly created by streaming simply reflect more fundamental, structural problems within the recorded music industry. Streaming needs a complete reset.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
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)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
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)

Datasets

{{{Dataset}}}