Difference between revisions of "Thomes (2013)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining, Qualitative Collection Methods, Case Study
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining, Qualitative Collection Methods, Case Study
 
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining)
 
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining)
|Industry=Sound recording and music publishing;
+
|Industry=Sound recording and music publishing; Creative, arts and entertainment;
 
|Country=European Union; USA;
 
|Country=European Union; USA;
 
|Cross-country=No
 
|Cross-country=No

Revision as of 15:21, 9 April 2016

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

Thomes (2013)
Title: An economic analysis of online streaming music services
Author(s): Tim Paul Thomes
Year: 2011
Citation: Thomes, Tim Paul. An economic analysis of online streaming music services. Information Economics and Policy 25.2 (2013): 81-91.
Link(s): Definitive ,
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Literature review
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?: Yes
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 1996 to 2011
Funder(s):

Abstract

Streaming music services represent the music industry’s greatest prospective source of revenue and are well established among consumers. This paper presents a theory of a streaming music business model consisting of two types of services provided by a monopolist. The first service, which offers access free of charge, is of low quality and financed by advertising. The second service charges its users and is of high quality. The analysis demonstrates that if users are highly tolerant of commercials, the monopolist benefits from advertising funding and hence charges a high price to users of the fee-based service to boost demand for the advertising supported service. The analysis addresses the welfare consequences of such a business model and shows it is an effective policy for combating digital piracy.

Main Results of the Study

• This paper examines a monopolistic streaming music business model with two vertically differentiated types of services. • The low-quality service offers free access and is advertising based, while the high-quality service is fee based. • High tolerance of advertising benefits the monopolist and harms users. • Launching both types of services never leads to a socially desirable outcome. • Such a streaming music business model may be an effective means to combat digital piracy

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

  • Streaming music services such as the 'two-tier fremium' model can act as effective mitigation of digital piracy
  • A successful streaming service is likely to have a monopoly or near-monopoly but the provision of different services to different consumer markets by vertically bisecting the service (into free and advertising supported and high quality advertising free subscription models) means that there is still a choice for the consumer



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)
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)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 1
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 1996 to 2011


Sample size: 1
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 1996 to 2011