Ahh, music publishing. While the Collective Rights Management Directive technical review by the UK IPO is still underway (coverage of the Directive on the 1709 blog here), discussions on music publishing are lively. Today a group of researchers, industry and policy makers gathered at Birkbeck workshop to debate recent research on music publishing.
|JB Williams, founder of the|
Interestingly, the young PRS was very protective of its reputation, and took pains to set the record straight in the reporting of the cases and brought actions for libel. While PRS was a bit late to the CMO game, they were innovative in their data management in the UK. The researchers argued that while CMOs, and PRS, altered the idea of the music industry itself (defining both the concept of the industry, and intangible rights), many of the challenges associated with managing intangible assets persist.
In case you missed that detail above, PRS granted the researchers access to the archives. Something that PRS should be commended for, and something that the research (and possibly policy) community would like to see more of.
Again looking at collective licensing, Dennis Collopy then described the strange relationship between creators and publishers. Content owners are in a battle over copyright in the US, and may be losing. There appears to be a covert attempt by technology companies to take publishers out of the music licensing system. Collopy argued that the value chain is under unprecedented pressure to change. Another interesting point - Europe makes up nearly 60% of collective licensing income, whereas the US is only 22.2% (figures from Collopy, available here.)
|"Henny Penny" by Mabel Hill|
The sky is falling!
- UK: PRS For Music, 11% generally
- USA: ASCAP, 11% generally
- Germany: 20% + cultural deductions 10%
- France: 22% + cultural deductions 10%
- Italy: SIAE, 18.7% + cultural deductions 10%
- Belgium: ~35% deductions including cultural
|Kobalt Kats with long tales|