The Government has responded to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendations on the economics of music streaming, part of its wider response to the Committee’s report on ‘Creator Remuneration’ (which we discuss here).

We commented on the Committee’s report in this area previously here. It followed and built upon an earlier report on the ‘Economics of Music Streaming’ (on which we’ve reported here, here, and here) which called for a ‘complete reset’ to address what it identified as structural problems within the recorded music industry and streaming economy. Whilst welcoming some positive signs of progress since that report, the Committee nonetheless urged the Government to look at how it can “drive fundamental reform of music streaming with a package of measures deigned to make streaming work for all”.

In its response, the Government has stated that it is “pleased to see the progress that the music industry has already made in addressing issues around music metadata and transparency, through groundbreaking industry agreements on these topics. The government is confident that these agreements will result in real benefits for creators and values the constructive efforts from all parts of the industry in developing and implementing them”. However, in terms of addressing continuing concerns about remuneration and the split of streaming revenues, the Government is clear that the answer lies not in governmental intervention, but “dialogue within industry and, where appropriate, industry-led action”.

Accordingly, it pours cold water on the three potential changes to copyright law on which the Intellectual Property Office had consulted, namely (1) Introducing a legal right for performers to be paid under an equitable remuneration model when their music is streamed; (2) Giving creators a right to renegotiate their contracts in certain circumstances; and (3) Giving creators a right to regain ownership of their rights after a set period of time. Similarly, the Government cites the Competition and Markets Authority’s market study into music and streaming (on which we commented here) to argue that any competition-based interventions could well lead to unintended consequences and worse outcomes for both consumers and creators.

The response offers examples of the sort of industry-led work that is driving change (such as agreements on metadata and transparency) and confirms the continuation of the Creator Remuneration Working Group (“CRWG”) which will, among other things, “explore remuneration issues”.

The CRWG itself features in the Committee’s report, as it argues that ‘music makers’ be granted “a stronger and fairer voice over issues of remuneration for the duration of the Group’s timespan”. In response, the Government simply states that it is “confident that the Creator Remuneration Working Group has an adequate and appropriately broad representation from across the music industry, including major and independent labels, publishers, platforms and organisations representing creative talent”, adding that “the government will continue to monitor the progress made on this issue and adapt the group if it feels it is necessary”.

Finally, the Committee recommended that the Government launch a consultation “with fans, music makers and other stakeholders to incentivise an optimal rate for publishing rights in order to fairly remunerate creators for their work”. Again, the response from the Government is rather lukewarm on this point, stating that it “welcomes views from songwriters, publishers, and other stakeholders on this issue, and the Creator Remuneration Working Group is the right forum through which they can be expressed, and potential industry-led actions explored in the first instance, before considering further intervention”.

To read the response in full, click here